Vehicle Development Corporation PTY LTD v. Livernois Vehicle Development, LLC

Filing 56

ORDER DENYING 50 , 54 Comerica and Livernois's Motions for Clarification or Reconsideration; DENYING 53 VDC's Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (Chubb, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT,
CORPORATION PTY, LLD, ET
AL.,
Plaintiffs/CounterDefendants,
v.
LIVERNOIS VEHICLE
DEVELOPMENT, LLC AND
COMERICA BANK,

CIV. NO. 13-14090
HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
HON. MICHAEL J. HLUCHANIUK

Defendants/CounterPlaintiff.
_________________________________/
ORDER DENYING COMERICA AND LIVERNOIS’S MOTIONS
FOR CLARIFICATION OR RECONSIDERATION (DKT. 50, 54)
AND VDC’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (DKT. 53)
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Comerica Bank’s (“Comerica”) and Defendant
Livernois Vehicle Development, LLC (“Livernois”) have moved for clarification or
reconsideration (Dkts. 50, 54) of the Court’s November 27, 2013 opinion and order
(Dkt. 46) denying Plaintiff’s motion for possession pending final judgment.
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants Vehicle Development Corporation, et al. (collectively
“VDC”) respond with a motion for default judgment (Dkt. 53). All three motions will
be DENIED.

ANALYSIS
Comerica brings its motion for clarification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, and also
asks for “reconsideration,” presumably under E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h). The Court’s
November 27, 2013 does not contain any clerical errors, oversights or omissions,
thus Rule 60(a) is inapplicable. Motions for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)
are “opportunit[ies] for the court to correct manifest errors of law or fact and to
review newly discovered evidence or to review a prior decision when there has been
a change in the law.” United States v. Davis, 939 F.Supp. 810, 812 (D. Kan. 1996).
Rule 60(b) motions are “addressed to the sound discretion of the district court.”
FHC Equities, LLC v. MBL Life Assurance Corp., 188 F.3d 678, 683 (6th Cir. 1999).
Such motions seek extraordinary judicial relief and can be granted only upon a
showing of exceptional circumstances. See McAlpin v. Lexington 76 Auto Truck
Stop, Inc., 229 F.3d 491, 502-03 (6th Cir. 2000). Having carefully considered the
grounds advanced by Comerica, it is clear that no showing of exceptional
circumstances has been made.
Under E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h), “[t]he movant must not only demonstrate a
palpable defect by which the court and the parties ... have been misled but also
show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” Id.
A defect is palpable when it is “obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.”
Chrysler Realty Co., LLC v. Design Forum Architects, Inc., 544 F.Supp.2d 609, 618
(E.D. Mich. 2008). The Court’s Order of November 27, 2013 contains no “manifest
error of law or fact” and no “palpable defect” has been identified by which the Court
2

has been misled. The portion of the Court’s November 27, 2013 order that Comerica
seeks to have “clarified” or “reconsidered” precisely tracks the language of MCR
3.105(E)(4)(b)(ii), which permits the Court to require a “defendant” to “ agree that
he or she will surrender the property to the person adjudged entitled to possession
and will pay any money that may be recovered against him or her in the action.” Id.
Comerica’s concerns regarding the potential for misinterpretation of the scope of the
Court’s Order are premature: the November 27, 2013 order denied VDC’s motion
for possession pending final judgment pursuant to the terms of the MCR 3.105.
MCR 3.105(E)(4) gives the Court broad discretion to “order whatever relief the
evidence requires.” This matter is set for trial and the rights of the parties will be
determined by the Court when a final judgment is entered. The proper scope of
damages, if any, will be determined during next week’s trial.
VDC’s motion for default is not well taken. The Court does not believe that
default is a proper sanction for either an alleged failure to comply with Local Rule
7.1 or for allegedly failing to comply with the Court’s Order of November 27, 2013.
The Court has not ruled that Comerica has committed either of these failures.
Rather than seeking to resolve this matter through any type of settlement,
the parties have chosen to have their rights determined through the litigation
process. The issue of possession pending final judgment is resolved. The Court will
entertain no further motions or briefing concerning that issue, and the parties may
not file any other pleadings concerning that issue without prior leave of Court.

3

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Comerica and Livernois’s motions for clarification or reconsideration (Dkt. 50,
54) are DENIED;
(2) VDC’s motion for default judgment (Dkt. 53) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: December 11, 2013

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on December 11,
2013, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to each party.
By: s/A. Chubb
Case Manager

4