Reed

Filing 13

ORDER DENYING 12 Appellants' Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (AChu)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KEEPER OF THE WORD
FOUNDATION, et al.,
Case No. 17-11664
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

Appellants,
v.
KENNETH A. NATHAN,
Appellee.
______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING APPELLANTS’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF #12)
In a written Order dated February 6, 2018, this Court affirmed a May 9, 2017,
order of the Bankruptcy Court enjoining Appellants Gregory Reed, Keeper of the
Word Foundation, Mic-Arian Corporation, and the Gregory J. Reed Scholarship
Foundation from filing certain legal actions without prior permission of the
Bankruptcy Court. (See ECF #11.) Appellants have now filed a timely motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s order. (See ECF #12.) For the reasons that follow, the
motion is DENIED.
On a motion for reconsideration, a movant must demonstrate that the court
was misled by a “palpable defect.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). A “palpable defect”
is a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. See Witzke v.
Hiller, 972 F.Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 1997). The movant must also show that

1

the defect, if corrected, would result in a different disposition of the case. See E.D.
Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to rehash old
arguments, or to proffer new arguments or evidence that the movant could have
presented earlier. See Sault Ste. Marie v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998).
Appellants have failed to meet this standard. None of the arguments raised in
the motion for reconsideration persuade the Court that it palpably erred when it
affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s order. Nor have Appellants shown that even if such
a defect existed, it would have resulted in a different disposition of the case.
Accordingly, Appellants have not established that the Court should reconsider its
initial ruling.
While the Court concludes that none of Appellants’ arguments in the motion
for reconsideration have merit, the Court will specifically address one argument
Appellants appear to have made. Appellants seem to argue that the Court erred when
it affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s order because “[Reed] is not the alter ego of KWF
or the Appellants.” (Mot. for Reconsideration, ECF #12 at Pg. ID 875.) The Court
finds this argument puzzling because its decision affirming the Bankruptcy Court in
this appeal did not rest on the conclusion that Reed and the Appellants are alter egos.
Indeed, as the Court explained, each of the Appellants filed and were active
participants in legal action that the Bankruptcy Court concluded was vexatious. (See
ECF #11 at Pg. ID 861.) Simply put, Appellants were enjoined as a result of their

2

own conduct. And to the extent that Reed and/or the Appellants complain that the
Bankruptcy Court’s order was overbroad because it “liberally extended … to any
entity in which Reed was a member or shareholder” (Mot. for Reconsideration, ECF
#12 at Pg. ID 868; emphasis in original), Reed acknowledged in his bankruptcy
schedules that, aside from Appellants, no such entities exist. Therefore, even if this
defect were corrected, it would not change the scope of the Bankruptcy Court’s
order. Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court’s order was not overbroad on this (or any
other) basis.
For all of these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellants’
Motion for Reconsideration (ECF #12) is DENIED.

Dated: February 21, 2018

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

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on February 21, 2018, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Amanda Chubb for Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3