Opinion
Case No. 11-15279
12-07-2012
In re: NEHYA AHMED, Debtor. NEHYA AHMED Appellant, v. MICHAEL A. STEVENSON, Appellee.
ORDER DENYING DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Debtor Nehya Ahmed moves for reconsideration of a September 29, 2012, order affirming two orders of the bankruptcy court. Neither a hearing nor a response from Appellee is needed. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(2).
Under Local Rule 7.1(h)(1), a party must move for reconsideration of an order within fourteen days of the order's issuance. Debtor moved for reconsideration on October 25, 2012, twelve days too late. Debtor provides no reason why she missed the deadline.
Further, "a motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to advance positions that could have been argued earlier but were not." McDermott v. Randall S. Miller & Assocs., P.C., 835 F.Supp.2d 362, 374 (E.D. Mich. 2011) (quotation omitted). Debtor raises two items; a December, 2009, order in her divorce action, and money that Debtor allegedly received in February, 2011. Debtor submitted her opening brief in this appeal in January, 2012. She fails to explain why she waited until now to raise the order and the money.
Finally, Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) requires a movant for reconsideration to identify a "palpable," i.e., unmistakable, defect in a ruling. The motion for reconsideration is disjointed and difficult to follow. Debtor fails coherently to explain either the importance of the issues she raises or how the issues reveal a palpable defect in the September 29, 2012, order.
Accordingly, for each of the three reasons stated, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration [Dkt. # 11] is DENIED.
___________
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this date, December 7, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
(313) 234-5522