Kassa v. Detroit Metro Convention & Visitors Bureau et al

Filing 22

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 21 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARK KASSA,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-13153
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
DETROIT METRO CONVENTION
& VISITORS BUREAU et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT (ECF #21)
In this action, Plaintiff Mark Kassa (“Kassa”) alleged that Defendants
Detroit Metro Convention & Visitors Bureau and Detroit Sports Commission
(collectively, “Defendants”) infringed his trademarks. On December 7, 2015, the
Court entered an order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Kassa’s First
Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim (the “Dismissal Order”). (See ECF
#19.) That same day, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants. (See
ECF #20).
On December 17, 2015, Kassa filed what he titled “Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment” (the “Motion to Amend”). (See ECF #21.) In its entirety, the
Motion to Amend provides as follows:

1

NOW COMES Plaintiff, by and through its counsel,
Yaldo Law, PLLC, and respectfully moves this court,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), to
alter or amend its judgment entered on December 7,
2015. In support of its motion, Plaintiff relies on the
attached Proposed Amended Complaint, which provides
new factual allegations against the Defendants.
(Id. at 1, Pg. ID 232.) The Motion to Amend is not supported by a brief or
memorandum of law, nor is the motion accompanied by any argument whatsoever
– factual or legal – as to why Kassa is entitled to the relief he seeks.
Kassa has attached to the Motion to Amend a proposed amended complaint
that he seeks to file. The opening paragraph of the proposed amended complaint
provides as follows:
Mark Kassa, (“Plaintiff”), for his claims against
defendants Detroit Metro Convention & Visitors Bureau
and Detroit Sports Commission (“Defendants”), files this
Amended Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (FRCP)15, which shall, pursuant to FRCP
59(e), be construed as a motion to alter or amend the
December 07, 2015 Order granting Defendants’ motion
to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint/First Amended
Complaint.
(Id. at 2, Pg. ID 233; emphasis added.)
The Motion to Amend is fundamentally flawed in several respects. First, it
fails to comply with this Court’s Local Rules concerning the filing of motions.
Among other things, Local Rule 7.1 requires a party filing a motion to:

2

 Seek concurrence prior to filing a motion and, if
concurrence is not obtained, to state in the motion that
the party either conference with the opposing side prior
to filing the motion or made reasonable efforts to conduct
such a conference. (See E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(a).)
 Include with each motion filed a supporting brief that
identifies the “the controlling or most appropriate
authority for the relief sought.” (See E.D. Mich. Local
Rule 7.1(d)(2).)
The Motion to Amend does not comply with these rules.
Second, the Motion to Amend does not even attempt to explain why Kassa is
entitled to the relief he seeks. Indeed, as noted above, the Motion to Amend
contains no supporting brief and identifies no “authority for the relief sought.”
Third, the Motion to Amend does not recognize the clear distinction drawn
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit between the standard
governing a motion to amend a complaint that is filed before the entry of a final
judgment and the standard governing a motion that is filed after entry of a final
judgment. As the Sixth Circuit has explained:
Rule 15 requests to amend the complaint are frequently
filed and, generally speaking, freely allowed. But when a
Rule 15 motion comes after a judgment against the
plaintiff, that is a different story. Courts in that setting
must consider the competing interest of protecting the
finality of judgments and the expeditious termination of
litigation. If a permissive amendment policy applied
after adverse judgments, plaintiffs could use the court as
a sounding board to discover holes in their arguments,
then reopen the case by amending their complaint to take

3

account of the court’s decision. That would sidestep the
narrow grounds for obtaining post-judgment relief under
Rules 59 and 60, make the finality of judgments an
interim concept and risk turning Rules 59 and 60 into
nullities.
When a party seeks to amend a complaint after an
adverse judgment, it thus must shoulder a heavier burden.
Instead of meeting only the modest requirements of Rule
15, the claimant must meet the requirements for
reopening a case established by Rules 59 or 60. In postjudgment motions to amend, as a result, the Rule 15 and
Rule 59 inquiries turn on the same factors. A court acts
within its discretion in denying a Rule 15 and a Rule 59
motion on account of undue delay—including delay
resulting from a failure to incorporate previously
available evidence—and ought to pay particular attention
to the movant’s explanation for failing to seek leave to
amend prior to the entry of judgment.
Leisure Caviar, LLC v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 616 F.3d 612, 61516 (6th Cir. 2010) (internal citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis in
original). Here, Kassa has failed to demonstrate how he satisfies this “heavier
burden” and has provided no explanation for why he failed to seek leave to amend
prior to the entry of judgment. Simply put, Kassa has failed to demonstrate how he
is entitled to the relief he seeks under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure or otherwise.

4

Accordingly, for all of these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Kassa’s Motion to Amend (ECF #21) is DENIED.

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: December 22, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on December 22, 2015, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

5