Roche et al v. CitiMortgage, Inc. et al

Filing 75

ORDER Denying Motions for Rehearing/Reconsideration 70 & 72 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHN ROCHE AND
SUE RADULOVICH,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 14-CV-11424
Hon. Denise Page Hood

CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,
TROTT & TROTT, P.C.,
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP.,
JOHN DOE AND MARY ROE,
Defendants.
/

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR REHEARING/RECONSIDERATION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs John Roche and Sue Radulovich’s
Motion for Rehearing/Reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and Supplemental
Motion for Rehearing/Reconsideration. (Doc. Nos. 70 and 72) On September 30,
2017, a Judgment and Order dismissing the Complaint were entered in this action.
(Doc. Nos. 68 and 69)
An amendment of an order after a judgment has been entered is governed by
Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 59(e) provides that any
motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 28 days after entry of
the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Motions to alter or amend judgment may be

granted if there is a clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening
change in controlling law or to prevent manifest injustice. GenCorp., Inc. v. American
Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999). The Local Rules of the Eastern
District of Michigan provide that any motion for reconsideration must be filed within
14 days after entry of the judgment or order. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1). No response
to the motion and no oral argument thereon shall be allowed unless the Court orders
otherwise. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(2). The Local Rule further states:
(3) Grounds. 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 motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to re-hash old arguments, or to
proffer new arguments or evidence that the movant could have brought up earlier.
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998)(motions under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) “are aimed at re consideration, not initial consideration”)(citing
FDIC v. World Universal Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.1992)). Federal courts hold
the pro se complaint to a “less stringent standard” than those drafted by attorneys.
2

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). However, courts have refused to excuse pro
se litigants from failing to follow basic procedural requirements such as filing
deadlines. Nor do the courts grant special or preferential treatment to pro se parties
in responding to motions. Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991); Brock
v. Hendershott, 840 F.2d 339, 343 (6th Cir. 1988).
In their Motion for Rehearing/Reconsideration, Plaintiffs argue that the Court
cannot overrule the rulings and findings made by the Grosse Pointe Woods Court that
the assignment of the mortgage was improper and that the Grosse Pointe Shore parcel
was not included in the mortgage. This argument was raised and thoroughly argued
by the parties in the various papers filed by the parties. The matter was previously
before the Grosse Pointe Woods Court on the request for Possession of Judgment after
foreclosure proceedings against Plaintiffs had been finalized. The Quiet Title issue
was not addressed since that court believed it had no authority to issue a ruling on the
claim. The Quiet Title claim was raised by Plaintiffs in the removed Complaint. The
Court found against Plaintiffs on the Quiet Title Claim.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ motion merely presents the same issues ruled
upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. Plaintiffs have
failed to demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties and other
persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled. Plaintiffs have not
3

shown that the Court clearly erred in ruling that Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be
dismissed.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motions for Rehearing/Reconsideration (Doc.
Nos. 70 and 72) are DENIED.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: August 30, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on August 30, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

4