UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN RE:

CHRISTOPHER D. WYMAN,

Case No. 14-13047

Debtor. Hon. Denise Page Hood

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. MASON, Trustee,

(Bankruptcy Case No. 12-32264)

Plaintiff, (Adv. Proc. No. 12-03348)

v.

MICHELLE PICHLER,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Reconsideration filed by

Plaintiff Bankruptcy Trustee Michael A. Mason filed August 12, 2015. A response

and reply have been filed.

On August 3, 2015, the Court entered an Order regarding the Bankruptcy

Court’s Report and Recommendation. The Court adopted the R&R in part, allowing

the Bankruptcy Court to conduct limited discovery after the Trustee files an amended

complaint. The Court also indicated its “serious concern” over the entries of the

default and default judgment which this Court noted were not before it. The Court

2:14-cv-13047-DPH-MKM Doc # 22 Filed 03/28/16 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 696
noted that the default and default judgment may affect the outcome of the non-core

proceedings before this Court. In light of all these issues raised in the Bankruptcy

Court’s R&R, the Court allowed the Bankruptcy Court to address these issues and to

issue an amended R&R. The Court overruled the parties’ objections without prejudice

pending issuance of an amended R&R.

Although the Trustee argues that Local Rule 7.1(h)(1) is not the appropriate

standard of review for the Court’s reconsideration of its Order, the Court disagrees.

The Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan provide that any motion for

reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order. 

E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1). No response to the motion and no oral argument thereon

shall be allowed unless the Court orders otherwise. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(2). The

Local Rule further states:

(3) Grounds. 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 motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to re-hash old

arguments, or to proffer new arguments or evidence that the movant could have

2

2:14-cv-13047-DPH-MKM Doc # 22 Filed 03/28/16 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 697
brought up earlier. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir.

1998)(motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) “are aimed at re consideration, not initial

consideration”)(citing FDIC v. World Universal Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.1992)).

The Trustee’s Motion for Reconsideration seeks reconsideration of the Court’s 

order allowing the Bankruptcy Court to address the issues raised in its R&R. The

Trustee asserts the Bankruptcy Court cannot order the Trustee to file an amended

complaint. The Trustee argued this Court did not consider the objections filed the

R&R appropriately.

As noted by both parties, Rule 9033(d) of the Rules of Bankruptcy provides

that,

The district judge shall make a de novo review upon the

record or, after additional evidence, of any portion of the

bankruptcy judge’s findings of fact or conclusions of law

to which specific written 1objection has been made in

accordance with this rule. The district judge may accept,

reject, or modify the proposed findings of fact or

conclusions of law, receive further evidence, or recommit

the matter to the bankruptcy judge with instructions.

Bankr. R. 9033(d). The Trustee has failed to show that this Court’s August 3, 2015

Order does not comply with Rule 9033(d). The rule clearly allows this Court to

“recommit” the matter to the Bankruptcy Court. As to the objections, the Court

overruled the objections without prejudice pending an amended R&R from the

Bankruptcy Court. The Bankruptcy Court may also address any order it enters as it

3

2:14-cv-13047-DPH-MKM Doc # 22 Filed 03/28/16 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 698
relates to any refusal by the Trustee to submit an amended complaint as ordered by the

Bankruptcy Court. The Court denies the Trustee’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Trustee’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 17)

is DENIED.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: March 28, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of

record on March 28, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

4

2:14-cv-13047-DPH-MKM Doc # 22 Filed 03/28/16 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 699