The Honor able Da nny C. Reeves, United States District Judge for the E astern D istrict of * Kentucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 06a0905n.06 F iled: Dec em ber 18, 2006 No. 05-2073 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
Interc ontinental Electronic s, S.p.A., Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. Richard G. Roosen; Kahn, Kahn, Gibson and Roosen, P.C., De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR THE EA STE RN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: DAUG HTREY, MCK EAGU E, Circuit Ju dges; an d REEVES , District Judge. * McK eague, Circ uit Jud ge. Appellant Interc ontinental Electronic s, S.P.A. appe als the district court’s orde r deny ing A ppellant’s motion to reconsider the district court’s g rantin g of Appellee s’ Rule 12(c) motion for judgme nt on the pleading s in Appellant’s leg al malpra ctice a ction ag ainst Appellee s Richard G. Roosen an d Kahn, Kahn, Gibson & Roosen, P.C. For the re asons state d b e low , th e pa

ne l A F F I RMS the or de r o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
. I. BACKG ROUND Appellant is an Italian cor poration in the ele ctronic pia no business. America

n Key board Products, I nc., is a Michig an cor poration that contra cted with Appe llant to dist ribute Appe llant’sNo. 05-2073

Intercontinental v. R oosen

- 2 - pianos. Euler SIAC Societa I taliana Assicur azione Crediti (“Euler ”) is an Italian insuranc e
c o mp an y th a tp r o v i d e s c o v e r a g e f

o r b a d c o n tr a c t u a l d e b tt o b u s i n e s s e s i n c l u d i n g Ap p e l l an t
. In 1999, Appellant submitted a cla im to Euler from Appe llant’s dealing s with America n Key board Products, I nc. Euler

paid the cla im and there by beca me subrog ated to Appe llant’s rig hts. On July 6, 20 00 , App e lle e s f

ile d a c oll e c tio n s uit

on be ha lf of Ap pe lla nt a nd Eu le r a g a ins t Americ an Ke y

board Produc ts, I nc., Robert C. Kotz, and Gre g ory Wy socki (collec tively

“AKP”) in Michiga

n state cour

t. The suit was broug ht in Appellant’s name only . AKP filed a counter claim ag ainst Appellant on April 25, 2001. Appe llant claims that Appellee s did not notify it of this countercla im. On J une 20, 2001, Appe llees moved to withdraw as Appe llant’s counsel, a nd the cour

t g rante d that motion on J uly 18, 2001. Appellee s claim to have se rved the motion to wit hdrawon Appellant in I taly , but Appellant claims that it was not g iven such notice . In its J uly 18, 2001
or de r gra nti ngthe mot ion

to w ith dr aw, the state tr ia l c ourt , inte r a lia , ( 1) or de re d App e lle e s to
serve Appellant with a c opy of the orde r at Appe llant’s last known addre ss in I taly ; (2) allowe d Appellant thirty

day s to find new counse l; and (3) wa rned that a def

ault judgme nt would be
e nte re d a g a ins t App e lla

nt a nd its c omp la int

wo uld be dis mis se d if

it f a ile d to a pp e ar a t an Augus t 28 , 2 00 1 s c he du lin g c on fe re nc e . App e lle e s c la im that th e tr ia l c ourt a lso se nt t

wo no tic e s to Appellant, informingit of the pretr ial confe renc e and c ase e valuation. On August 28, 2001, the trial court e ntere d two order s when Appe llant did not appear at the pr e tr ia l c on fe re nc e . F ir st, it d ism iss e d App e lla nt’ s c la im w ith out pr e

jud ic e . Se c on d, it
e nte re d a de fa ult on AK P’ s c ounte rc la im a g a ins t App e lla nt. AK P se rv e d App e lla

nt w iththe seNo. 05-2073

Intercontinental v. R oosen

Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

op ini on state s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt

g ra nte d th e mot ion

fo r e ntr y of de fa ult 1 judgme nt on May

1, 2002, but the complaint as we ll as the brief s of both parties state that the motion was made on May

1, 2002, and g rante d on May 15, 2002. J A at 16, 2 5 ; Ap p el l ant’s B r. 9; Appellee s’ B r. 4. - 3 - two order s on September 12, 2001. Appe llant admits that it rec eived these order s. On Octobe r 25, 2001, Appellant aske d Euler f or an e x planation of the de fault orde r, and Eule r re plied by fac simil e, “A fter r eviewingthe attac hed docume nts, it i s rec ommended they be ig nored since the
case was dismissed and no fur ther a ction was be ing taken.” JA at 25. Euler the n notified Appellant on Nove mber 9, 2001 that the a ction had bee n conclude d. On May 1, 2002, AKP moved for e ntry of def ault judgme nt. On May

15, 2002, the trial 1 court g rante d the motion, enteringa def ault judgme nt ag ainst Appellant for $2,552,012.97. On J une 5, 2002, Appe llant moved to have the de fault judg ment set aside, c laiming that it neve r
rec eived notice of the orde r per mitti ng Appellee s to withdraw. The trial court de nied Appellant’ s motion, holdi ng that its ex planations “c erta inly do not overc ome the numer ous notices and attempts to ge t the attention of [Appellant]” and that “it speaks a lot that imm ediately

upon hear ing the J udg ment [Appellant] finally woke up a

nd found a w ay

to appea r in this court and hire e x perie nced c ounsel to come in her e and tr y to set it aside.” JA at 130. Appellant appe aled to the Michig an Court of Appe als, and that c ourt aff irmed the judg ment althoug h it reduce d the
awa rd by $1,000,000. The Court of Appe als held that there is a presumption of re ceipt by the addre ssee of

mail that is addressed, stamped, and e ntrusted to the United States Postal Service f or delivery , and that pre sumption was not rebutted in this case be cause the statements by one ofNo. 05-2073

Intercontinental v. R oosen

- 4 - Appellant’s of

fice rs in an af

fidavit “did not constitute the ty pe of positive, deta iled, and dire ct testimony nece ssary

to overc ome the pre sumption.” J A at 81-82. Appellant then f

iled a cla im ag ainst Appellee s in the United States District Court for the Easter n District of Michig an on June 20, 2003, assertingleg al malpra ctice, e quitable subrog ation, and neg lige nce by

Appellee s in failing to c omply with the trial court’ s order of Jul y 18, 2001, fa ili ngto g ive Ap pe lla

nt n oti c e of

the c ounte rc la im, and

wr on g ly namin g Ap pe lla

nt a s p la int if

f i n the under lying a ction. I n its response to Appellee s’ Rule 12(c) motion, Appellant claimed that (1) Appe llees’ motion should be conve rted to a motion for summar y judgme nt; (2) Appellee s improperly

prosec uted the state c ourt ac tion solely in Appellant’s name and but for this fa ct, the defa ult judgment would not have been e ntere d ag ainst Appellant; and (3) Appellant is not estopped fr om assertingthat Appellee s are liable for the ir ac tions. The district cour

t gr anted Appe llees’ motion to dismi ss pursuant to Rule 12(c) on May 25, 2005. I t first rea soned that Appe llees’ motion was one for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(c) and not a motion for summary judgme nt beca

use the e x hibits considered by the district court
wer e only those that wer e par

t of the plea dings or

public rec ord. I t next held that collater al estoppel estopped A

ppellant from de nying that it rece ived notice of the orde r allowingAppellee s to withdraw a

nd requiringAppellant to appe ar at the schedulingconfe renc e. F inally , the district court he ld that reg ardle ss of whethe r Appe llees improper ly prosec uted the state c ourt ac tion solely in Appellant’s name , Appellee s have no liability to Appellant bec ause A

ppellant “ig nored the def ault until a defa

ult judgment wa s entere d some seven a nd a half months later.” JA at 32.No. 05-2073

Intercontinental v. R oosen

Ap pe lla nt c la ims that it

ha s a lso a

pp e a le d th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra nti ngof Ap pe lle e s’ Rul e 2 12(c) motion, notwit hstanding the fa ct that its notice of appeal st ates that it is appea ling only “fr om the Or de r D e nyingPla int if f’ s Mo tio n to Re c on sid e r G ra nti ngof De fe nd ant’ s Mo tio n to Di smi ss .

. . . ” JA a t 3 8
. A c c o r d in g to F e d e r a l Ru le o f Ap p e ll a te Pr o c e d ur e 3 ( c ) ( 1 ) , “ T h e n o ti ce of appea l - 5 - Ap pe lla nt t he n f ile d a mot ion wi th t he dis tr ic t c ourt

purs ua nt t o F e de ra l Ru le of

Civ il Procedur e 59(e ) for

rec onsideration of the district court’s orde r. I t argued that the district cour t
or de r w a s b a se d u

po n ma nif e st e rr or s o f l aw a

nd that it sh ou ld b e re ve rs e d to avo id a manif e st injusti ce. I

n support of its argument, Appellant cla imed that the district court misapplied Mic hig an p ro ximate c a

us e jur isp ru de nc e , d isr e g ard e d a n a pp lic a ble Mic hig an r e a l pa

rt y in interest statute, ig nored a statement by

the Michig an Court of Appe als that if Appellee s imp ro pe rl y

re pr e se nte d th e mse lve s a s App e lla nt’ s atto rn e y , th e n App e lla nt’ s r e me dy

lie s in a su it ag ainst Appellee s, and absolved A ppellees f rom any liability for f iling an a ction on behalf

of Appellant without Appellant’s knowle dg e or pa rticipation. The district cour t denied the motion, holding ( 1) that it did not make any deter mination of the probative qua lity of Appe llant’s proxi mate ca

use evide nce, r ather

it dism issed Appellant’s c laim beca use it could not show it was
en t i t l edt o re l i ef

d u e t o i t s i n ab i l i ty , th ro u ghth e ap p l i ca t i o no f c o l l at er al es t o p p el , t o ch al l en ge the no tic e of

the July 18 , 2 00 1 o rd e r a

nd (2 ) t hat th e re ma ind e r o f A

pp e lla nt’ s mo tio n me re ly raised issues pr eviously

befor e the c ourt, and the c ourt will not gra nt motions for r econside ration that prese nt issues that were , either e x pressly or by rea sonable implication, previously ruled upon by the cour t. Appellant appe als only

the g rantingof the orde r deny ing its motion to reconsider the g ra nti ngof Ap pe lle e s’ mot ion

to d ism iss
. 2No. 05-2073

Intercontinental v. R oosen

must . . . (B ) desig nate the judgme nt, or der, or part ther eof be ing a

ppeale d.” F ed. R. App. P. 3(c)
. Whil e it is true that this circ uit has held that “an appea l from a final j udg ment draw s into question all prior non-f

inal ruling s and orde rs,” this rule is l imited by the furthe r holding that “[i] f, howe ver, an a pp e lla nt c ho os e s to de signat e sp eci fi c de te rm inatio ns in i ts n oti c e of a pp e a l, o nly

tho se deter minations may be raised on appeal.” Newman v. Fe d. Express Corp. , 26 6 F .3 d 40 1, 40 4 ( 6th Cir. 2001) (ci t at i o n an dinternal quotation omitted). Ther efor e, to the extent that Appellant sp e c if ic a lly de signate d the or de r de nying its mot ion to re c on sid e r in its no tic e of a pp e a l, “ on ly

[that] deter mination[ ] m ay

be ra ised on appe al.” Id. - 6 -

II. AN AL YSI S This court has he ld that ordinarily a denia l of a motion to alter or a mend a judg ment pursuant to Rule 59(e) is reviewe d for a buse of discr etion. Ha ns ma nn v . F ide lit yIn v s. Institutional

Servs. Co. , 326 F.3d 760, 766 ( 6th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). Howeve r, if a Rule 59(e) motion seeks rec onsideration of a g rant of summar

y judgme nt, de novo re view is the applicable standard. Id. at 767. L ike Hansmann , the instant case involves an appe al from the Easter n District of Michig an, and Hansmann held that the “district c ourt must gr ant a motion for
rec onsideration if the mova nt demonstrates that the district c ourt and the pa rties have been misled by a palpa ble def ect, a nd corr ectingthe def

ect will re sult in a differe nt disposit ion of the
case .” Id. (q

uo tin g E. D. Mic h. R. 7 .1 (h )) . T he su c c e sso r r ule to L oc a l Ru le 7. 1( h) , L oc a l Ru le 7.1(g )(3) , which wa s cited by the district court, e ssentially provides the same standar d for g rantinga motion for re consideration: Gene rally , and without restric ting the c ourt’s discre tion, the court will not gr ant motions for rehe aringor re consideration that merely prese nt the same issues rule d upon by the cour t, either e x pressly

or by rea sonable implication. The movant must not onl y

demonstrate a

palpable de fec t by

which the c ourt and the pa rties have be en misled but also show that corr ectingthe def ect will re sult in a differe nt dispositi on of the c ase.No. 05-2073

Intercontinental v. R oosen

- 7 - E.D. Mich. R. 7.1(g )(3)
. On appe al, Appellant a

rgues that the district cour t erre d in applying c ollatera l estoppel be c a us e it r e lie d o n p re c e de nt f ro m th e Mic hig an Co ur

t of Ap pe a ls f

or the pr op os iti on

that a defa ult judgment has a

collater al estoppel e ffe ct when the issues are sufficie ntly litigated. Appellant also a

rgues that the Rule 12(c ) motion was improperly g rante d beca

use the district court improper ly

made c erta in fac tual deter minations while ignoringg enuine issues of material fa c t. It li sts a

numbe r o f i ns tanc e s w he re by it c on te nd s th a t App e lle e s w e re ne g lig e nt, and the n it makes a novel ar g ument reg ardingcausation, namely that Appellee s’ “omissions of
c omm un ic a tio n a

nd the ir wr on g fu l a c ts o f u

na uth or ize d f

ili ngc omb ine d to de pr ive [Ap pe lla nt] of the kind of notice that one would ty pically have a s a newdefe ndant,” a nd thus “denied [Appellant] the context that would have made the pape r notices mea ningf ul.” Appellant’ s Br . 33 (empha sis in original). Appellant’s a

ppeal f ails beca use it does not meet the a fore mentioned standar d reg arding motions t o rec onsider. The rec ord conta ins no indication that the district court was in a ny way misled by a palpa ble def ect unde r the lawof this court, and inde ed Appe llant’s brief c ontains no such ar g ument. See H

enderson v . W

alled Lake Consol. Sch. , No. 05-1814, 2006 WL3313972, at *1 3 ( 6th Cir . N ov . 1 6, 20 06 ) ( ho ldi ngthat th e “ pa lpa ble de fe c t” sta

nd ard is n ot i nc on sis te nt w ith requiringa showingof “( 1) a c lear err or of law ; (2) new ly

discovere d evidenc e; (3) a n interveningchang e in controlling law; or (4) a nee d to preve nt manifest injustice”). I nstead, Ap pe lla nt’ s argume nt o n a

pp e a l r e a ds lik e an a

pp e a l f ro m th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra nti ngof the Rul eNo. 05-2073

Intercontinental v. R oosen

- 8 - 12(c) motion, essentially

reha shing the arguments previously raised, na

mely that collater al estoppel should not have be en applied a nd that its lega l malprac tice cla im was valid. Henc e, Appellant “me rely

prese nt[ s] t he same issues ruled upon by the cour t, either e x pressly

or by
re a so na ble imp lic a tio n. ” E. D. Mic h. R. 7 .1 (g )( 3) . A c c or din g ly , n oth ingin t he re c or d le a ds thi s court to conc lude that the district cour t’s denial of the motion to reconsider w as an a buse of discretion. III . C ON CL USI ON F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , th e pa ne l A F F I RMS t

he or de r o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
.