Milner et al v. Biggs et al

Filing 58

ORDER denying 51 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge James L Graham on 08/04/2011. (ds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Jason A. Milner, et al.,
Case No. 2:10-cv-00904
Plaintiffs,
Judge James L. Graham
v.
Magistrate Judge King
Robin Biggs, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the Motion for Reconsideration (doc. # 51) of
Plaintiffs Jason, Natasha, and Lexi Milner. Plaintiffs ask this Court to reconsider its June
8, 2001 Opinion and Order (doc. # 48) dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants
Arrow Title Agency, LLC, Jonathan Holfinger, and Chris Moore for violation of the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act (“CSPA” or “Act”). Defendants filed a memorandum in
opposition, to which Plaintiffs filed a reply. This matter is now ripe for decision.
While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly authorize motions for
reconsideration of a final judgment, they are commonly treated as either a Rule 59(e)
motion to alter or amend a judgment, or a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment or
order. Hood v. Hood, 59 F.3d 40, 43 n. 1 (6th Cir. 1995). Rule 59(e) states that “[a] motion
to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 10 days after the entry of the
judgment,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), while Rule 60(b) states that “[o]n motion and just terms,
the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding” for various reasons, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Motions under Rule 59(e) or 60(b) are
not intended to be utilized to re-litigate issues previously considered.
In considering such a motion for reconsideration of a final order, the Court is
mindful that the motion is granted only in limited circumstances. Granting or denying a
1

motion for reconsideration is within the informed discretion of the Court, and reversible
only upon a showing of an abuse of that discretion. Shivers v. Grubbs, 747 F.Supp. 434, 436
(S.D. Ohio 1990). Generally, there are four situations that would justify a court in
reconsidering one of its final judgments or orders: (1) to accommodate an intervening
change in controlling law; (2) to account for newly discovered evidence; (3) to correct a clear
error of law; or (4) to prevent manifest injustice. See GenCorp, Inc. v. American Int’l
Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999).
In its Opinion and Order, this Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ CSPA claims against
Defendant Arrow, finding that under Brown v. Liberty Clubs, Inc., 45 Ohio St.3d 191, 192,
543 N.E.2d 783 (1989), and its progeny, title services such as those rendered by Defendants
do not fall within the parameters of the Act. After carefully considering the arguments
made in Plaintiffs’ motion, this Court finds that there is no intervening change in the
controlling law, and Plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary are without merit. Further,
Plaintiffs do not point to any newly discovered evidence, nor do they present any case law in
support of a claim that this Court committed a clear error of law. Last, Plaintiffs fail to
make any legal argument that reconsideration would prevent a manifest injustice. As a
result, this Court adheres to its original decision. Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (doc. # 51) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James L. Graham
Judge James L. Graham
United States District Court
DATE: August 4, 2011
2