Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, Successor By Merger To Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation

Filing 28

ORDER denying 27 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION, as Receiver for
Washington Mutual Bank,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-13706

v.

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Successor by Merger to Lawyers
Title Insurance Corporation,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
ORDER DENYING FIDELITY’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before the court is Defendant Fidelity National Title Insurance Company’s
motion for reconsideration of the court’s opinion and order dismissing Fidelity’s
counter-complaint. Specifically, Fidelity seeks reconsideration of the court’s
dismissal of its gross negligence defense. The standard for granting a motion for
reconsideration is as follows:
Generally, and without restricting the court’s discretion,
the court will not grant motions for rehearing or
reconsideration which merely present the same issues
ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable
implication. The movant shall 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.
LR 7.1(h)(3). A motion for reconsideration “is not properly used as a vehicle to rehash old arguments or to advance positions that could have been argued earlier but
were not.” Smith v. Mount Pleasant Schools, 298 F. Supp.2d 636, 637 (E.D. Mich.
2003) (citing Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 357,
374 (6th Cir. 1998)).
In its motion for reconsideration, Fidelity argues that its gross negligence
defense is valid, an argument considered and rejected by the court. Upon review,
the court finds that Fidelity has not demonstrated a “palpable defect” by which the
court and the parties have been misled.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Fidelity’s motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.
s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge
Date: November 12, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on this date, November 12, 2015, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

-2-