Khoshiko et al v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee for RALI 2006QS18
Filing
19
OPINION AND ORDER Denying Plaintiffs' 18 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Goltz, D)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BAHI KHOSHIKO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Case No. 12-CV-14717
v.
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY
AMERICAS, as TRUSTEE FOR RALI
2006QS18,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DKT. 18)
The matter before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and supporting brief
(Dkt. 18), filed after the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See 9/23/2013 Order
(Dkt. 16). Plaintiffs’ sparse brief consists of the following two-sentence argument: “In the case
at bar, Mediation was never considered. Since this is a Quite Title action that involved home
foreclosure and a Loan Modification this action is ripe for mediation in order to give the
Plaintiffs an opportunity to retain their home.” Pl.’s Br. at 1.
Under the Court’s Local Rules, the court will not grant a motion for reconsideration that
merely presents “the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable
implication.” Id. The movant must (i) demonstrate a “palpable defect” by which the court and
the parties have been “misled,” and (ii) show “that correcting the defect will result in a different
disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. L. R. 7.1(h)(3). A “palpable defect” is an error that is
“obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” United States v. Cican, 156 F. Supp. 2d 661,
668 (E.D. Mich. 2001). Furthermore, a “motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to re-hash
old arguments, or to proffer new arguments or evidence that the movant could have presented
earlier.” Gowens v. Tidwell, No. 10-10518, 2012 WL 4475352, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 27,
2012) (citing Sault St. Marie v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998)); Owner-Operator
Indep. Drivers v. Arctic Express, Inc., 288 F. Supp. 2d 895, 900 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (“Motions for
reconsideration do not allow the losing party . . . to raise new legal theories that should have
been raised earlier.”).
Here, Plaintiffs argue that mediation was never considered in this case, supporting their
argument by attaching two mediation orders issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
16(c)(2)(P) in other cases. But Plaintiffs fail to direct the Court to a palpable defect in its order
granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Additionally, Plaintiffs’ response to Defendant’s
motion to dismiss and two supplemental briefs, Plaintiffs never asserted an argument seeking
mediation, and a motion for reconsideration is an improper vehicle to raise new arguments.
Arctic Express, 288 F. Supp. 2d at 900. Furthermore, even if Plaintiffs had sought mediation
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(P), the decision to order mediation lies within the discretion of the
district court. See In re NLO, Inc., 5 F.3d 154, 157-158 (6th Cir. 1993) (stating that district
courts “unquestionably have substantial inherent power to manage their dockets” in context of
issuing orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16); C & A Const. Co. v. DHC Development, 501 F.
App’x 763, 778 (10th Cir. 2012) (“Obviously, a district court may . . . ‘facilitat[e] in other ways
the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of the action.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(c)(2)(P)).
Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 18).
2
SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 17, 2013
Flint, Michigan
s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
and any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class
U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on October 17, 2013.
s/Deborah J. Goltz
DEBORAH J. GOLTZ
Case Manager
3
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?