UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRY BRYANT,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 15-10199

MEADE & ASSOCIATES, INC., HON. AVERN COHN

LAW OFFICES OF DONALD R.

CONRAD, PLC, DONALD R.

CONRAD, and LEGALCOLLECTIONS.COM

LLC, 

Defendants.

__________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 225)

I.

This is a case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and corresponding

state debt collection statutes. Plaintiff Terry Bryant sued defendants Meade &

Associates (Meade), the Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC, Donald R. Conrad, and

LegalCollections.com, LLC. Bryant settled with Meade. (Doc. 5). The case then

proceeded against the Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, PLC, Donald R. Conrad, and

LegalCollections.com (collectively, where appropriate, the Conrad defendants).

Eventually, the Court entered a default judgment against the Conrad defendants

for failure to comply with discovery and Court orders relating to discovery. (Doc. 28).

The Court later granted plaintiff’s motion for damages in the amount of $101,000.00

against the Conrad defendants, jointly and severally. (Doc. 30). Plaintiff then began

collection efforts which to date have been unsuccessful. Also, the Law Offices of

2:15-cv-10199-AC-MJH Doc # 267 Filed 03/28/17 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1695
Donald Conrad, PLC and Donald Conrad filed a notice of appeal (Doc. 133), appealing

the Court’s orders denying a motion to set aside the default and reconsideration of the

same.1 Notably, the Court did not stay collection proceedings in light of the appeal.

Subsequently, counsel for the Law Offices of Donald Conrad, PLC and Donald

Conrad - attorneys at the law firm of Plunkett and Cooney - filed a notice of withdrawal

as counsel. (Doc. 185). Based on the notice, the Court granted counsel’s request. 

(Doc. 222). The Court also gave the Law Offices of Donald Conrad, PLC and Donald

Conrad thirty days (30) days from the date of this order in which to obtain new counsel

and stayed proceedings against them. The 30 days expire on April 6, 2017.

Before the Court is plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion for Reconsideration.” (Doc.

225). For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.

II.

E.D. Mich LR 7.1(h)(3) provides in relevant part:

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 implication. 

The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the

court and the parties have been misled but also show that correcting the

defect will result in a different disposition of the case.

Restating arguments does not establish a defect or that the Court was misled. See

Intercontinental Electronics, S.p.A. v. Roosen, 210 F. App’x 491, **3 (6th Cir. 2006). 

III.

Plaintiff first seeks reconsideration of the Court’s decision to stay collection

1

The Sixth Circuit recently entered an order permitting counsel to withdraw and

allowing Donald Conrad and the Law Offices of Donald Conrad to appear pro se. 

Bryant v. Meade, 17-1090 (6th Cir. Mar. 313, 2017).

2

2:15-cv-10199-AC-MJH Doc # 267 Filed 03/28/17 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1696
proceedings because, at the time the motion was filed, there was another counsel of

record for Donald Conrad and the Law Offices of Donald Conrad, PLC – attorney Wade

A. Meyers. However, Wade A. Meyers has recently filed a Notice of Withdrawal as

Counsel of Record. (Doc. 229). In light of this filing, Wade A. Meyers is WITHDRAWN

as counsel of record. Donald Conrad and the Law Offices of Donald Conrad, PLC are

plainly unrepresented. Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration on this ground is

essentially moot. The Court sees no reason to disturb its order staying collection

proceedings while Donald Conrad and the Law Offices of Donald Conrad, PLC seek

counsel.

Plaintiff also says reconsideration is warranted because the Court’s order staying

collections proceedings was “ambiguous” as to writs of garnishment that were issued

prior to the stay order but not yet served. To be clear, all collection proceedings against

Donald Conrad and the Law Offices of Donald Conrad, PLC, including pending

garnishments, are stayed until April 6, 2017. Plaintiff shall not serve any writs of

garnishment that have been issued until after April 6, 2017. 

SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 28, 2017

Detroit, Michigan

3

2:15-cv-10199-AC-MJH Doc # 267 Filed 03/28/17 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1697