Reed

Filing 12

ORDER Denying Appellants' 11 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KEEPER OF THE WORD
FOUNDATION, et al.,
Case No. 17-cv-11660
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

Appellants,
v.
CHARLES H. BROWN TRUST, et al.,
Appellees.
______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING APPELLANTS’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF #11)
On February 12, 2018, this Court entered a written order that affirmed an April
25, 2017, order of the Bankruptcy Court accessing sanctions against the Appellants
for frivolous and vexatious conduct. (See ECF #10.) Appellants have now filed a
motion that they call a “motion for reconsideration” of this Court’s order. (See ECF
#11.) For the reasons that follow, Appellants’ motion is DENIED.
I
Motions for reconsideration in this Court are governed by Local Rule 7.1(h).
Under that rule, “[a] motion for rehearing or reconsideration must be filed within 14
days after entry of the judgment or order.” E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(1). In
addition, “[g]enerally, and without restricting the Court's discretion, the Court will
not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same
1

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. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3).
Appellants’ motion fails under this rule for two reasons. First, the motion is
untimely.

As noted above, the Court’s local rules require a motion for

reconsideration to be filed no more than “14 days after entry of the [applicable]
judgment or order.” E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(1). The Court entered its order
affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s sanctions order on February 12, 2018. (See ECF
#10.) Appellants therefore had until no later than February 26, 2018, to file a motion
for reconsideration. Appellants missed this deadline by more than a week. The
Court therefore denies the motion as untimely filed.
Second, even if the motion was timely filed, the Court would still not grant
Appellants relief. None of the arguments raised in the motion for reconsideration
persuade the Court that it palpably erred when it affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s
sanctions order. Nor have Appellants shown that even if such a defect existed, it
would have resulted in a different disposition of the case. Accordingly, even if
Appellants had timely filed their motion for reconsideration, the Court would have

2

denied it because they have not established an entitlement to relief under the
governing rule.
II
While Appellants call their motion a “motion for reconsideration,” and while
they specifically ask the Court to “reconsider its Order” affirming the assessment of
sanctions (Mot. for Reconsideration, ECF #11 at Pg. ID 324, 329), Appellants do
not attempt to apply Local Rule 7.1 in their motion. Instead, Appellants cite various
provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. (See id. at Pg. ID 324.) But Rule
60 relates to motions to set aside a judgment or order, and Appellants have not made
any attempt to explain the applicable standards under Rule 60 or to apply those
standards to this case. Simply put, Appellants have not shown how or why they are
entitled to relief under Rule 60, and the Court will not grant them relief under that
rule.
III
For all of the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Appellants’ Motion for Reconsideration (ECF #11) is DENIED.

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

Dated: March 6, 2018

3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on March 6, 2018, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.

s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

4