Tyson v. John R Service Center Inc. et al

Filing 164

ORDER denying 157 Motion for Judgment. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SeTara Tyson,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 13-13490
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge

v.
John R. Service Center, Inc.,
Credit Acceptance Corp., Sterling
Car Rental, Inc., d/b/a Car Source,
Al Chami, and Rami Kamil,

Mag. Judge Mona K. Majzoub

Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATED
JUDGMENT [157]
Before the Court is Plaintiff SeTara Tyson’s motion for a
consolidated order of judgment. (ECF No. 157.) Due to the nature of the
litigation in this case, the orders and stipulations awarding Plaintiff
damages, costs, and fees are recorded throughout the docket. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants have not paid the damages, fees, or costs
awarded to Plaintiff in this case, and Defendants have not responded to
or opposed these allegations. (See ECF No. 151, PageID.1889.) Plaintiff’s
motion requests that all of the orders resolved in Plaintiff’s favor be

consolidated into a single judgment so that Plaintiff can record a single
item as a lien or include it with a garnishment. (ECF No. 157,
PageID.1953.)
No separate judgment document has been entered in this case
because there was never an opinion or decision of this Court that
adjudicated all claims at one time such that a separate judgment was
required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, 58. The background of this case has been
set forth in previous orders, but to briefly summarize, Plaintiff’s motion
for partial summary judgment was granted on March 18, 2015. (ECF No.
55.) The remaining claims were resolved by stipulation on April 9, 2015.
(ECF No. 59.) Then, appeals were taken and, on remand, the Court
denied Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on April 10,
2017. (ECF No. 112.) The parties stipulated to settling the last remaining
claim on November 27, 2017. (ECF No. 120.) The merits of this case have
been resolved for over two years. The last opinion and order, which
denied Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order
granting attorney fees to Plaintiff, was entered in this case on October
15, 2019. (ECF No. 149.)

2

Although Plaintiff seeks an “amended final order of judgment,” she
cannot seek an amended judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) because there is no separate judgment to amend. Nor is she seeking
to alter the terms of any previous orders. Rather, Plaintiff moves under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(b)(2) which provides,
Subject to Rule 54(b)1 the court must promptly approve
the form of the judgment, which the clerk must promptly
enter, when:
...
(B) the court grants other relief not described in this
subdivision (b).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(b)(2). However, the primary purpose of Rule 58 is “to
enable a party to know when the court regards the case as closed and
intends that no further action be taken, and thus to know when the time
to appeal has commenced to run.” Hooker v. Weathers, 990 F.2d 913, 914
(6th Cir. 1993). Thus, Rule 58 does not support entering a separate

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) states: “When an action presents more
than one claim for relief—whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party
claim—or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final
judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court
expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or
other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the
rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of
the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment
adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.”
1

3

judgment for a limited purpose of consolidating the previous records into
a single document. Moreover, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(a)
states: “‘Judgment’ as used in these rules includes a decree and any order
from which an appeal lies. A judgment should not include recitals of
pleadings, a master's report, or a record of prior proceedings.” Plaintiff’s
request in her motion is, in essence, for a consolidated record of prior
proceedings. Accordingly, the Court declines to enter a separate
judgment for the reasons set forth above and Plaintiff’s motion is
DENIED.
However, the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s position and
recognizes the challenges inherent in enforcing awards and stipulations
of damages, fees, and costs that are not contained in a single document,
particularly when they span over four years of litigation. After careful
review of Plaintiff’s motion and proposed order, the Court can confirm
that the awards set forth in the below chart have been entered in
Plaintiff’s favor in this case:
Docket Entry
ECF No. 55

Description
Amount
Opinion and Order $12,248.00
Granting
Plaintiff’s
Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment
4

ECF No. 59

Stipulated Order for
Damages
Order
Granting
Plaintiff’s Motion for
Taxation of Costs
Opinion and Order
Granting
in
Part
Plaintiff’s Motion for
Attorney Fees
Stipulated Order of
Dismissal
Taxed costs
Order
Adopting
Report
and
Recommendation
Granting in Part and
Denying
in
Part
Plaintiff’s Motion for
Attorney Fees

ECF No. 69
ECF No. 80

ECF No. 120
ECF No. 123
ECF No. 148

Total:

$3,000.00
$716.55
$57,306.40

$7,000.00
$1,010.00
$140,844.67

$222,125.62

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 21, 2020
Ann Arbor, Michigan

s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
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 January 21, 2020.
s/William Barkholz
Case Manager
5