Wyman

Filing 6

ORDER Denying 4 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
IN RE:
CHRISTOPHER D. WYMAN,
Debtor.
______________________________________

Case No. 15-12459
Hon. Denise Page Hood

MICHAEL A. MASON, TRUSTEE and
BARBARA DUGGAN,
(Bankruptcy Case No. 12-32264)
Appellants,
(Adv. Proc. No. 12-03347)
v.
CHRISTOPHER D. WYMAN and
DIANA KAYE GENTRY,
Appellees.
________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Reconsideration1 filed by
Appellants Bankruptcy Trustee Michael A. Mason and Barbara Duggan filed August
10, 2015. On July 31, 2015, the Court entered an Order dismissing this action for lack
of jurisdiction pursuant to its Order dismissing the related bankruptcy appeal in Case
No. 15-12031, In re Christopher D. Wyman, Debtor. It is noted no motion for
reconsideration was filed in Case No. 15-12031.
1

Appellants also chose the “Motion for Attorney Fees” event entry which does not appear to
be applicable to the instant motion. The Court denies this motion.

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 dismissing this action. The Court did not err in dismissing the instant action in
2

light of its dismissal of the related Case No. 15-12031. The Court denies the
Appellants’ Motion for Reconsideration.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Appellants’ Motion for Attorney Fees and Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. No. 4) are 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