Adelson v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, et al
ORDER DENYING 95 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and STRIKING 97 Defendant's Response. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 07-13142
Hon. Terrence G. Berg
OCWEN FINANCIAL, et al.,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND STRIKING DEFENDANT’S
RESPONSE (Dkts. 95, 97)
This matter is before the Court on two motions: (1) Plaintiff’s
April 11, 2017 motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 95) of the Court’s
March 28, 2017 Order Striking Plaintiff’s Objections and Adopting
the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 93), and (2) Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt.
For the reasons set forth below, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s
Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED and Defendant’s response
The Court may grant a motion for reconsideration if the movant
satisfactorily shows that: (1) a palpable defect misled the parties
and the Court; and (2) correcting the defect would result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). A defect is
palpable if it is “obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or
plain.” Olson v. Home Depot, 321 F. Supp. 2d 872, 874 (E.D. Mich.
2004). The Court will not grant a motion for reconsideration “that
merely present[s] the same issues ruled upon by the court, either
expressly or by reasonable implication.” Id.
Plaintiff’s motion does not identify any palpable defects in the
Court’s Order Striking Plaintiff’s Objections and Adopting the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 93). Rather, it disagrees with the Court’s decision to strike Plaintiff’s objections and
reiterates the objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation that Plaintiff raised in prior briefs. Because Plaintiff identifies no palpable defect in the Court’s order, her motion for reconsideration is not well taken and must be denied.
In addition, because Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s motion runs afoul of the Eastern District of Michigan’s Local Rule
7.1(h)(2) (“no response to [a motion for reconsideration] and no oral
argument are permitted unless the court orders otherwise”), it must
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 95) is DENIED and Defendant’s response is
Dated: July 10, 2017
s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically filed, and
the parties and/or counsel of record were served on July 10,
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?