Wargelin v. Bank of America, N.A., successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P.
Filing
14
OPINION AND ORDER denying 13 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KRISTEN WARGELIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, NA,
Successor by merger to BAC
HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP
Case No. 12-CV-15003
Paul D. Borman
United States District Judge
Defendant.
_______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Dkt. No. 13)
On October 10, 2013, this Court granted Defendant Bank of America, NA’s
(“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 11). Now before the Court is Plaintiff Kristen
Wargelin’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Reconsideration which was filed on October 24, 2013.
(Dkt. No. 13).
Plaintiff alleges the Court committed a palpable error when it failed to address her
request for mediation when Plaintiff specifically requested mediation in the oral argument for
this matter. Plaintiff’s argument in support of this contention consists of exactly two
sentences: “In the case at bar, Mediation was never considered. Since this is a Quite [sic]
Title action that involved home foreclosure and a Loan Modification this action is ripe for
mediation in order to give Plaintiff an opportunity to retain her home.” (Plf.’s Br. 1)
(emphasis in original). In support of this claim Plaintiff inexplicably attaches two orders for
facilitation in unrelated cases before different judges in this district. (Plf.’s Br. Ex. 1 & 2).
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is brought pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 which
provides:
Generally, and without restricting the court’s discretion, the court 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.
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.
E.D.Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). “A ‘palpable defect’ is a defect which is obvious, clear,
unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Ososki v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 162 F. Supp. 2d
714, 718 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
More confounding to the Court than Plaintiff’s lack of supporting argument or case
law in this motion is Plaintiff’s refusal to acknowledge the fact that the Court determined her
complaint failed to set forth any plausible claims. When a court dismisses a complaint for
failure to state a claim, it is implausible that the same court will simultaneously find that the
action is “ripe” for mediation on the same claims. Therefore, although this Court did not
specifically address Plaintiff’s request for mediation, its holding on that matter can be
deduced “by reasonable implication.” E.D.Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). Accordingly, Plaintiff has
failed to show any palpable defect in the Court’s Opinion and Order granting Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss.
2
For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt.
No. 13).
SO ORDERED.
s/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 12, 2013
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or
party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on November 12, 2013.
s/Deborah Tofil
Case Manager
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?