Brintley v. Belle River Community Credit Union

Filing 38

ORDER denying 37 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (CPic)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

KARLA BRINTLEY,
Case No. 17-13915
Plaintiff,
v.

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

BELLE RIVER COMMUNITY CREDIT
UNION,

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ANTHONY P. PATTI

Defendant.

/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [37]
On July 20, 2018, the Court entered an Order [35] denying Defendant Belle
River Community Credit Union’s Motion to Dismiss and granting Plaintiff Karla
Brintley’s request for leave to amend the complaint. On August 2, 2018, Plaintiff
filed an Amended Complaint [36] which alleges substantively the same claims as
the original complaint. On August 16, 2018, Defendant filed this Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint [37].
In its second Motion to Dismiss [37] presently before the Court, Defendant
repeats all of the arguments it previously made in its first Motion to Dismiss. But
these arguments have already been thoroughly considered – and rejected – by this
Page 1 of 3

Court, as set forth in Order [35]. In actuality, this Motion to Dismiss is a motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s Order [35] denying Defendant’s first Motion to
Dismiss. Construing it as such, the Court considers Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) which
provides:
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.
“[T]he decision to grant the motion is within the court’s discretion.” In re
Greektown Holdings, LLC, 728 F.3d 567, 574 (6th Cir. 2013).
Defendant has neither demonstrated a palpable defect by which the Court has
been misled nor shown that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition
of this case. Defendant’s citation to recent, non-binding decisions from courts
outside of this District is unavailing. Defendant doesn’t get a second bite at the apple
here. See United States v. One 2003 GMC Sierra 3500 Pickup Truck, VIN:
1GTJK33113F208636, No. 05-74205, 2013 WL 27900, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 2,
2013) (“The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is not ‘to give an unhappy

Page 2 of 3

litigant one additional chance to sway the judge.’” (quoting Pakideh v. Ahadi, 99
F.Supp.2d 805, 809 (E.D. Mich. 2000))).
As the Court noted at the hearing, this case presents legal issues of first
impression in this District which are suitable for immediate review by the Sixth
Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (authorizing the district court to certify an order for
interlocutory appeal where it involves a controlling question of law as to which there
is substantial ground for a difference of opinion and the appeal would materially
advance the ultimate termination of the litigation). To that end, the Court suggests
that Defendant reevaluate its litigation strategy moving forward.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint [37] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2018

s/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3