Kumar et al v. U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee to Wachovia Bank NA as Trustee for the Certificateholders of the MLMI Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates Series 2005-A8 et al

Filing 18

OPINION and ORDER Regarding Plaintiffs' 17 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (JOwe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PRIYA KUMAR, and MUKESH
KUMAR, a married couple,
Plaintiffs,
No. 12-cv-12624
Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

vs.
U.S. BANK NATIONIAL ASSOCIATION,
AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO
WACHOVIA BANK, N.A. AS TRUSTEE
FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF
THE MLMI TRUST, MORTGAGE LOAN
ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES
2005-A8;
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; and
DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
___________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On March 1, 2013, this Court issued an opinion and order granting
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Judgment was entered in Defendants’ favor on
March 12, 2013.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Reconsideration, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and Eastern District of Michigan
Local Rule 7.1(h). For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny the motion.

1

I.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provides: “A motion to alter or amend
a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of the judgment.” The
decision of whether to grant relief under Rule 59(e) is within the district court’s
discretion. Davis by Davis v. Jellico Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 912 F.2d 129, 132 (6th Cir.
1990). That discretion, however, is limited to: (1) accommodating an intervening
change in controlling law; (2) accounting for new evidence which was not
available at trial; or (3) correcting a clear error of law or preventing manifest
injustice. Kenneth Henes Special Projects Procurement v. Continental Biomass
Industries, Inc., 86 F. Supp. 2d 721, 726 (E.D. Mich. 2000).
Rule 59 motions “are not intended as a vehicle to relitigate previously
considered issues; should not be utilized to submit evidence which could have been
previously submitted in the exercise of reasonable diligence; and are not the proper
vehicle to attempt to obtain a reversal of a judgment by offering the same
arguments previously presented.” Kenneth Henes, 86 F. Supp. 2d at 726 (citing
Nagle Industries, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 175 F.R.D. 251, 254 (E.D. Mich. 1997),
aff’d 194 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (internal quotations omitted).
The requirements for the granting of motions for reconsideration in this
Court are further set forth in Local Rule 7.1(h), which provides in relevant part:
Generally, and without restricting the court's discretion, the court will
not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present
2

the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by
reasonable implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a
palpable defect by which the court and the parties and other persons
entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but also show that
correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.
Local Rule 7.1(h)(3), U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan.

A

“palpable defect” is “a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or
plain.” United States v. Lockette, 328 F. Supp. 2d 682, 684 (E.D. Mich. 2004).

II.
This mortgage foreclosure case was removed to this Court from the Macomb
County Circuit Court on June 15, 2012. The facts and allegations of this case are
set forth in detail in the Court’s March 1, 2013 opinion and order granting
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #15). Accordingly, they will not be repeated
here.
Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ submission, the Court is not persuaded by
Plaintiffs’ attempts to distinguish the relevant case law, nor have Plaintiffs
identified any other cases or authorities that might support a different result. In
any event, this Court generally “will not grant motions for rehearing or
reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either
expressly or by reasonable implication,” Local Rule 7.1(g)(3), Eastern District of

3

Michigan, and the issues raised in Plaintiff’s present motion were squarely
addressed in the Court’s March 1, 2013 opinion and order.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
[Dkt. # 17] is DENIED.

Dated:

April 8, 2013

s/Gerald E. Rosen
GERALD E. ROSEN
CHIEF, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys
of record on this date, April 8, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Julie Owens
Case Manager, [phone]

4