Bryant v. Meade & Associates, Inc. et al

Filing 267


Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION TERRY BRYANT, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 15-10199 MEADE & ASSOCIATES, INC., LAW OFFICES OF DONALD R. CONRAD, PLC, DONALD R. CONRAD, and LEGALCOLLECTIONS.COM LLC, HON. AVERN COHN Defendants. __________________________________________/ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 225) I. This is a case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and corresponding state debt collection statutes. Plaintiff Terry Bryant sued defendants Meade & Associates (Meade), the Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC, Donald R. Conrad, and, LLC. Bryant settled with Meade. (Doc. 5). The case then proceeded against the Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC, Donald R. Conrad, and (collectively, where appropriate, the Conrad defendants). Eventually, the Court entered a default judgment against the Conrad defendants for failure to comply with discovery and Court orders relating to discovery. (Doc. 28). The Court later granted plaintiff’s motion for damages in the amount of $101,000.00 against the Conrad defendants, jointly and severally. (Doc. 30). Plaintiff then began collection efforts which to date have been unsuccessful. Also, the Law Offices of Donald Conrad, PLC and Donald Conrad filed a notice of appeal (Doc. 133), appealing the Court’s orders denying a motion to set aside the default and reconsideration of the same.1 Notably, the Court did not stay collection proceedings in light of the appeal. Subsequently, counsel for the Law Offices of Donald Conrad, PLC and Donald Conrad - attorneys at the law firm of Plunkett and Cooney - filed a notice of withdrawal as counsel. (Doc. 185). Based on the notice, the Court granted counsel’s request. (Doc. 222). The Court also gave the Law Offices of Donald Conrad, PLC and Donald Conrad thirty days (30) days from the date of this order in which to obtain new counsel and stayed proceedings against them. The 30 days expire on April 6, 2017. Before the Court is plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion for Reconsideration.” (Doc. 225). For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED. II. E.D. Mich LR 7.1(h)(3) provides in relevant part: 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 implication. The 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. Restating arguments does not establish a defect or that the Court was misled. See Intercontinental Electronics, S.p.A. v. Roosen, 210 F. App’x 491, **3 (6th Cir. 2006). III. Plaintiff first seeks reconsideration of the Court’s decision to stay collection 1 The Sixth Circuit recently entered an order permitting counsel to withdraw and allowing Donald Conrad and the Law Offices of Donald Conrad to appear pro se. Bryant v. Meade, 17-1090 (6th Cir. Mar. 313, 2017). 2 proceedings because, at the time the motion was filed, there was another counsel of record for Donald Conrad and the Law Offices of Donald Conrad, PLC – attorney Wade A. Meyers. However, Wade A. Meyers has recently filed a Notice of Withdrawal as Counsel of Record. (Doc. 229). In light of this filing, Wade A. Meyers is WITHDRAWN as counsel of record. Donald Conrad and the Law Offices of Donald Conrad, PLC are plainly unrepresented. Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration on this ground is essentially moot. The Court sees no reason to disturb its order staying collection proceedings while Donald Conrad and the Law Offices of Donald Conrad, PLC seek counsel. Plaintiff also says reconsideration is warranted because the Court’s order staying collections proceedings was “ambiguous” as to writs of garnishment that were issued prior to the stay order but not yet served. To be clear, all collection proceedings against Donald Conrad and the Law Offices of Donald Conrad, PLC, including pending garnishments, are stayed until April 6, 2017. Plaintiff shall not serve any writs of garnishment that have been issued until after April 6, 2017. SO ORDERED. S/Avern Cohn AVERN COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: March 28, 2017 Detroit, Michigan 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?