Certificate of Judgment CV 2010-11- 7619 Court of Common Pleas, Summit County, Ohio et al v. Nomad Preservation, Inc

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM and ORDER denying 14 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (JOwe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

STEPHEN T. HALEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 12-50351

NOMAD PRESERVATION, INC., et al.,

HON. AVERN COHN

Defendants.
______________________________________/
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 14)
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a creditor rights and debt collection case. Plaintiff Stephen Haley, proceeding
pro se, obtained a default judgment against defendant debtor Hassan Dabaja in a state
court in Ohio. The judgment was registered and certified in this district. Part of the
judgment required Dabaja to transfer a 2005 Cadillac to Haley. The Cadillac, however, was
sold to a third party individual.
On June 4, 2012, the Court denied Haley’s request to order the third party to turn
over the Cadillac and direct Dabaja to pay damages (Doc. 5).
On June 28, 2012, the Court issued an order allowing Haley to seize Dabaja’s
property to satisfy the judgment (Doc. 8). Haley unsuccessfully attempted to execute on
Dabaja’s property.
On August 15, 2012, Haley filed a “Motion And Notice For Court To Issue ‘Warrant
To Arrest Judgment Debtor’ Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 64, 69 And MCL 600.6075 To

600.6085 (Doc. 9).
On September 10, 2012, the Court held a show cause hearing.
On September 14, 2012, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order denying
Haley’s motion (Doc. 12).
Before the Court is Haley’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 14). For the reasons
that follow, the motion will be denied.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan provide that “[a] motion for
rehearing or reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment or
order.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1). No response or oral argument is allowed unless the court
orders otherwise. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(2). 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.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). To obtain reconsideration
of a court order, “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.” Id. 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).
III. DISCUSSION
Haley filed the motion for reconsideration on October 18, 2012, 34 days after entry
of the order. The motion is untimely. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h) (mandating motion for
reconsideration be filed within 14 days after order).
2

Further, Haley restates arguments previously argued in his original motion. Haley
has failed to demonstrate a palpable defect.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2012

S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of record
on this date, October 24, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Julie Owens
Case Manager, [phone]

3