Opinion
Case No.14-13573
07-08-2015
ROCHELLE DANIEL, Plaintiff, v. WEST ASSET MANAGEMENT, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT/ORDER
Pending before the court is a Motion to Amend Judgment/Order, filed by Plaintiff Rochelle Daniel on June 1, 2015 (Dkt. # 12). The court construes the motion as a motion for reconsideration. Having reviewed the briefs, the court concludes a hearing is unnecessary. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2). For the reasons stated below, the court will deny the motion.
The Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) sets forth the standard for a motion for reconsideration. Rule 7.1(h)(3) states that:
Generally, and without restricting the Court's discretion, the Court will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.E.D Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). A 'palpable defect' is 'a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.' " United States v. Lockett, 328 F. Supp. 2d 682, 684 (E.D. Mich.2004) (citing United States v. Cican, 156 F. Supp. 2d 661, 668 (E.D. Mich.2001)). A motion for reconsideration is improper when it is simply a restatement of arguments rejected in the court's original decision.
Plaintiff's arguments are essentially a repackaged version of her brief opposing Defendant's Motion for Dismiss. Plaintiff does not point to any controlling precedent the court overlooked in issuing its decision, but instead simply reargues the very issues considered and decided in that opinion. Disagreement with a court's reasoning is not a proper basis for a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff has not shown that the court's Opinion and Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 10) contained a palpable defect. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Judgement/Order (Dkt. # 12) is DENIED.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: July 8, 2015 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this date, July 8, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
(313) 234-5522
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\14-13573.DANIEL.MotAmend.ml.wpd