Filed: Nov. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 05, 2015
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THOMAS J. TUCKER , Bankruptcy Judge . This adversary proceeding is before the Court on the Plaintiff's motion entitled "Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Brief in Support," filed November 4, 2015 (Docket # 51, the "Motion"). The Motion seeks reconsideration of, and relief from, the Order filed on October 21, 2015, entitled "Order Granting Summary Judgment for Defendant On All Counts in Plaintiff's Complaint" (Docket # 47, the "Su
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THOMAS J. TUCKER , Bankruptcy Judge . This adversary proceeding is before the Court on the Plaintiff's motion entitled "Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Brief in Support," filed November 4, 2015 (Docket # 51, the "Motion"). The Motion seeks reconsideration of, and relief from, the Order filed on October 21, 2015, entitled "Order Granting Summary Judgment for Defendant On All Counts in Plaintiff's Complaint" (Docket # 47, the "Sum..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
THOMAS J. TUCKER, Bankruptcy Judge.
This adversary proceeding is before the Court on the Plaintiff's motion entitled "Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Brief in Support," filed November 4, 2015 (Docket # 51, the "Motion"). The Motion seeks reconsideration of, and relief from, the Order filed on October 21, 2015, entitled "Order Granting Summary Judgment for Defendant On All Counts in Plaintiff's Complaint" (Docket # 47, the "Summary Judgment Order"). The Court also construes the Motion as a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(b) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), which rules apply in adversary proceedings under Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7052 and 9023, respectively.
The Court concludes that the Motion must be denied, for the following reasons.
First, viewing the Motion as a motion for reconsideration, the Court finds and concludes that the Motion fails to demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties have been misled, and that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof. See LBR 9024-1(a)(3)(E.D. Mich.).
Second, the allegations and arguments in the Motion do not establish or demonstrate any valid ground for altering, or for relief from, the Court's Summary Judgment Order, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(b), 59(e), 60(a), or any provision of Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), or under any provision of Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7052, 9023, or otherwise.
Third, the Motion is deeply flawed because it presents, and is heavily based on, (1) evidentiary material presented for the first time with the Motion (the affidavit of Plaintiff Anthony Dettore, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Motion); (2) many facts that are supported by no evidence in the record, and many facts supported only by the affidavit of Plaintiff attached to the Motion, which affidavit is presented for the first time with the Motion; (3) many points and arguments never made before — i.e., made for the first time in the Motion. Plaintiff waived his right to present these evidentiary materials, alleged facts, points, and arguments, because Plaintiff did not timely present them before the Court ruled on Defendant's summary judgment motion and entered the Summary Judgment Order. The Court cannot and will not consider any such evidentiary material, alleged facts, points, or arguments.
As the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held, in affirming a district court's denial of a motion under Civil Rule 59(e) and motion for reconsideration,
It is well-settled that "parties cannot use a motion for reconsideration to raise new legal arguments that could have been raised before a judgment was issued." Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publ'g, 477 F.3d 383, 395 (6th Cir.2007). Additionally, reconsideration motions cannot be used as an opportunity to re-argue a case. Furthermore, a party may not introduce evidence for the first time in a motion for reconsideration where that evidence could have been presented earlier. See, e.g., Sommer [v. Davis], 317 F.3d [686,] 691 [(6th Cir. 2003)]; CGH [Transp. Inc. v. Quebecor World, Inc.], 261 F.App'x [817,] 824 [(6th Cir. 2008)] (affirming denial of reconsideration and stressing: "It is hard to imagine how an affidavit from one of [plaintiff's] own witnesses would have been previously unavailable to [plaintiff], and [plaintiff] has not explained why it failed to introduce this evidence in opposition to summary judgment.").
Bank of Ann Arbor v. Everest Nat'l Ins. Co., 563 F.App'x 473, 476 (6th Cir. 2014)(emphasis added); see also In re Madison Heights Grp., LLC, 506 B.R. 734, 736 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2014) and cases cited therein (arguments raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration are untimely, waived, and forfeited on appeal).
For all of these reasons, and for the reasons stated by the Court in its bench opinion given during the hearing on October 21, 2015, the Motion must be denied. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion (Docket # 51) is denied, in its entirety.
