Filed: Feb. 09, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 09, 2012
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PATRICK J. DUGGAN, District Judge. On or about September 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendants in the Circuit Court for Oakland County, Michigan, raising claims associated with the foreclosure of property in Rochester Hills, Michigan. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on or about September 30, 2011; and Defendants removed the lawsuit to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction on October 31, 2011. On Jan
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PATRICK J. DUGGAN, District Judge. On or about September 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendants in the Circuit Court for Oakland County, Michigan, raising claims associated with the foreclosure of property in Rochester Hills, Michigan. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on or about September 30, 2011; and Defendants removed the lawsuit to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction on October 31, 2011. On Janu..
More
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
PATRICK J. DUGGAN, District Judge.
On or about September 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendants in the Circuit Court for Oakland County, Michigan, raising claims associated with the foreclosure of property in Rochester Hills, Michigan. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on or about September 30, 2011; and Defendants removed the lawsuit to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction on October 31, 2011. On January 12, 2012, this Court issued an opinion and order dismissing Plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to Defendants' motion, striking Plaintiff's "Amended Mass Joinder Complaint," and denying several motions filed by Plaintiff. On January 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration.
Rule 7.1 of the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Michigan provides that a motion for reconsideration only should be granted if the movant demonstrates that the Court and the parties have been misled by a palpable defect and that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction of such a palpable defect. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1h)(3). A motion that merely presents the same issues already ruled upon by the Court shall not be granted. Id.
Plaintiff fails to set forth a palpable defect in the Court's decision, much less one that, if corrected, would result in a different disposition of the case. She points out what she believes are two factual errors in the Court's opinion and order (the reason U.S. Bank postponed foreclosure of Plaintiff's residence in 2008 and the impact of her bankruptcy and civil filings on the foreclosure process); however neither fact weighs on the outcome. Plaintiff further claims that the Court rendered a decision before all defendants were served. Plaintiff's amended complaint, however, named only Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and U.S. Bank as defendants. To the extent Plaintiff named other defendants in her "Amended Mass Joinder Complaint," the Court struck that attempted amendment as it was filed without leave of court and because the proposed amendments would be futile.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
