Brown

Filing 27

ORDER Denying 23 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (DPar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
In re:
SUSAN G. BROWN,
Debtor.
_____________________________________

Case No. 15-11017
Hon. Denise Page Hood

SUSAN G. BROWN,
(Bankruptcy Case No. 14-48421)
Appellant,
v.
DOUGLAS ELLMANN, TRUSTEE,
Appellee.
______________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Reconsideration filed by the
Appellant Susan G. Brown.
On May 31, 2016, the Court entered a Judgment and Opinion and Order
dismissing Appellant’s appeal and affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s “Order Granting
Trustee’s Application for Authority to Sell Certain Property Free and Clear of Liens,
Claims, Encumbrances and Other Interests to Proceeds of Sale; to Evict Debtor, and
Approving Broker’s Fees and Costs.” (Doc. Nos. 21, 22) On June 3, 2016, Appellant
filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration.

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.
2

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)).
The Court finds that Appellant’s motion merely presents the same issues ruled
upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. Appellant has 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. Appellant has not shown the
Court clearly erred in ruling that the appeal should be denied and dismissed.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Appellant Susan G. Brown’s Motion for Reconsideration
(Doc. No. 23, filed June 3, 2016) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: July 27, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on July 27, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

3