Neroni et al v. Bank of America et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying 19 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RANDY NERONI, an Individual, and
ALLISON NERONI, an Individual,
Case No. 13-11823
Plaintiffs,
Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., successor by merger
to BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING L.P. f/k/a
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING,
L.P., and SUZANNE MALI, Deputy Sheriff in and
for the County of Macomb,
Defendants.
____________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration [dkt 19]. Pursuant to E.D.
Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(2), a response to Plaintiffs’ motion is not permitted. As such, the Court finds that the facts
and legal arguments are adequately presented in Plaintiffs’ motion and brief such that the decision process
would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Therefore, pursuant to E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(2), and
7.1(f)(2), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion be resolved on the brief submitted. For the reasons set
forth below, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs’ motion challenges the Court’s October 17, 2013,1 Order granting Defendant Bank of
America, N.A.’s motion to dismiss. In its October 17, 2013, Order, the Court found that Plaintiffs’
complaint lacked the factual allegations necessary to state a claim upon which the Court could grant relief.

1

Although Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration was filed past the 14 day deadline contained in E.D. Mich. L.R.
7.1(h)(1), in the interest of justice the Court will nonetheless consider Plaintiffs’ Motion.

On this basis, the Court dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ claims contained in Plaintiffs’ complaint (Counts I-VII)
against Defendant Bank of America, N.A.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Local Rule 7.1(h) governs motions for reconsideration, stating that they must be filed within 14
days after entry of the judgment or order. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(1). “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. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). The same subsection further states, “[t]he movant
must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties . . . have been misled but also
show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” Id. A defect is palpable
when it is “obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Chrysler Realty Co., LLC v. Design Forum
Architects, Inc., 544 F. Supp. 2d 609, 618 (E.D. Mich. 2008).
IV. ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs’ motion fails to state a palpable defect by which the Court has been misled. Rather,
Plaintiffs’ motion presents issues that the Court has already ruled upon. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3).
Further, the motion indicates only Plaintiffs’ disagreement with the Court’s ruling. Such disagreement is not
a proper premise on which to base a motion for reconsideration. See, e.g., Simmons v. Caruso, No. 08-cv14546, 2009 WL 1506851, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 28, 2009); Cowan v. Stovall, No. 2:06-CV-13846, 2008
WL 4998267, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 21, 2008).
V. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’
Motion for Reconsideration [dkt 19] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: December 4, 2013

s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff
HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
2