Daniel v. Equable Ascent Financial, LLC et al
Filing
27
OPINION AND ORDER denying 26 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROCHELLE DANIEL,
Plaintiff,
Case No.
v.
14-11117
EQUABLE ASCENT FINANCIAL, LLC, and
VELOCITY PORTFOLIO GROUP,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Pending before the court is a Motion for Reconsideration, filed by Plaintiff
Rochelle Daniel on November 3, 2014 (Dkt. # 26). Having reviewed the briefs, the court
concludes a hearing is unnecessary. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2). For the reasons
stated below, the court will deny the motion.
The Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) sets forth the standard for a
motion for reconsideration. Rule 7.1(h)(3) states that:
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 that is obvious, clear,
unmistakable, manifest, or plain.’ ” United States v. Lockett, 328 F. Supp. 2d 682, 684
(E.D. Mich.2004) (citing United States v. Cican, 156 F. Supp. 2d 661, 668 (E.D.
Mich.2001)). A motion for reconsideration is improper when it is simply a restatement of
arguments rejected in the court’s original decision.
Plaintiff’s arguments are essentially a repackaged version of brief opposing
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff does not point to any controlling precedent the
court overlooked in issuing its decision, but instead simply reargues the very issues
considered and decided in that opinion. Disagreement with a court’s reasoning is not a
proper basis for a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff has not shown that the court’s
Opinion and Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 25) contained a
palpable defect. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. # 26) is
DENIED.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 26, 2014
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, November 26, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
(313) 234-5522
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\14-11117.DANIEL.MotReconsideration.ml.wpd
2
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?