Al-Mansoob v. Malloy et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying 21 Motion for Reconsideration re 19 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

SENAN AL-MANSOOB,
Case No. 09-14527
Plaintiff,
Honorable John Corbett O’Meara
v.
MATTHEW MALLOY and WILBURN ARSHER
TRUCKING,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter came before the court on Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of this court's order
granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendant filed a response; no oral argument
was heard.
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is time-barred pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(g)(1), which
provides that motions for reconsideration must be filed within 10 days after entry of the judgment
or order. In this case, the court's order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment and
judgment in Defendants' favor were both filed September 29, 2010. Plaintiff filed this motion for
reconsideration October 27, 2010, nearly 30 days later.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks relief alternatively under Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, no grounds exist for the court to grant Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff asserts that
this court failed to apply Prongs 1 and 2 of the judicial estoppel inquiry. However, Prong 1 was
established by Plaintiff's repeated failure to list the instant action in his bankruptcy proceeding until
after Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment. Prong 2 was similarly well established,

as the bankruptcy court discharged Plaintiff and authorized distributions of money to Plaintiff, his
attorney, and the trustee without any knowledge of this lawsuit which Plaintiff now claims is an
asset.
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 have been
misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition
of the case.
Local Rule 7.1(g)(3).
In this case the court finds no palpable defect. Plaintiff has merely presented the same issues
previously ruled upon by the court.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

s/John Corbett O'Meara
United States District Judge

Date: April 19, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
this date, April 19, 2011, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager