Gentry

Filing 13

ORDER Denying 12 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
IN RE:
DIANA KAYE GENTRY,
Debtor.
______________________________________

Case No. 15-11531
Hon. Denise Page Hood

MICHAEL A. MASON (Trustee) and
BARBARA DUGGAN,
Appellants,

(Bankruptcy Case No. 09-36472)
(Adv. Proc. No. 12-03340)

v.
DIANA KAYE GENTRY,
Appellee.
________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Reconsideration filed by
Appellants Bankruptcy Trustee Michael A. Mason and Barbara Duggan filed
September 3, 2015. On August 28, 2015, the Court entered an Order denying the
motion for leave to file an interlocutory bankruptcy appeal.
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)).
Appellants argue that this Court erred in ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over
the two orders appealed from in this action. The Court finds the Appellants have
failed to demonstrate that the Court was misled by a palpable defect in issuing its
Order denying leave to file an interlocutory appeal from a bankruptcy order denying
summary judgment. “[L]eave to appeal from interlocutory orders should be granted
only in ‘exceptional circumstances’ because to do otherwise would ‘contravene the
well-established judicial policy of discouraging interlocutory appeals and avoiding the
delay and disruption which results from such piecemeal litigation.’” In re Ruth
2

Wicheff, 215 B.R. 839, 844 (6th Cir. B.A.P. Jan. 29, 1998) (quoting, In re Ionosphere
Clubs, Inc.,, 179 B.R. 24, 28 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)). The Court notes that the underlying
bankruptcy action has generated four separate actions/appeals filed with this Court,
resulting in piecemeal litigation which is precisely the reason why interlocutory
appeals are only granted in exceptional circumstance. The Court will not reconsider
its decision in denying the Appellants’ leave to file an interlocutory appeal from the
Bankruptcy Court to this Court.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Appellants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No.
12) is DENIED.

S/Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: March 28, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on March 28, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

3