1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Jason A. Milner, et al., 

 Case No. 2:10-cv-00904 

 Plaintiffs, 

 Judge James L. Graham 

 v. 

 Magistrate Judge King 

Robin Biggs, et al., 

 Defendants. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court upon the Motion for Reconsideration (doc. # 51) of 

Plaintiffs Jason, Natasha, and Lexi Milner. Plaintiffs ask this Court to reconsider its June 

8, 2001 Opinion and Order (doc. # 48) dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants 

Arrow Title Agency, LLC, Jonathan Holfinger, and Chris Moore for violation of the Ohio 

Consumer Sales Practices Act (“CSPA” or “Act”). Defendants filed a memorandum in 

opposition, to which Plaintiffs filed a reply. This matter is now ripe for decision. 

 While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly authorize motions for 

reconsideration of a final judgment, they are commonly treated as either a Rule 59(e) 

motion to alter or amend a judgment, or a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment or 

order. Hood v. Hood, 59 F.3d 40, 43 n. 1 (6th Cir. 1995). Rule 59(e) states that “[a] motion 

to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 10 days after the entry of the 

judgment,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), while Rule 60(b) states that “[o]n motion and just terms, 

the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or 

proceeding” for various reasons, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Motions under Rule 59(e) or 60(b) are 

not intended to be utilized to re-litigate issues previously considered. 

 In considering such a motion for reconsideration of a final order, the Court is 

mindful that the motion is granted only in limited circumstances. Granting or denying a 

Case: 2:10-cv-00904-JLG-NMK Doc #: 58 Filed: 08/04/11 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

motion for reconsideration is within the informed discretion of the Court, and reversible 

only upon a showing of an abuse of that discretion. Shivers v. Grubbs, 747 F.Supp. 434, 436 

(S.D. Ohio 1990). Generally, there are four situations that would justify a court in 

reconsidering one of its final judgments or orders: (1) to accommodate an intervening 

change in controlling law; (2) to account for newly discovered evidence; (3) to correct a clear 

error of law; or (4) to prevent manifest injustice. See GenCorp, Inc. v. American Int’l 

Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999). 

 In its Opinion and Order, this Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ CSPA claims against 

Defendant Arrow, finding that under Brown v. Liberty Clubs, Inc., 45 Ohio St.3d 191, 192, 

543 N.E.2d 783 (1989), and its progeny, title services such as those rendered by Defendants 

do not fall within the parameters of the Act. After carefully considering the arguments 

made in Plaintiffs’ motion, this Court finds that there is no intervening change in the 

controlling law, and Plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary are without merit. Further, 

Plaintiffs do not point to any newly discovered evidence, nor do they present any case law in 

support of a claim that this Court committed a clear error of law. Last, Plaintiffs fail to 

make any legal argument that reconsideration would prevent a manifest injustice. As a 

result, this Court adheres to its original decision. Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (doc. # 51) is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/ James L. Graham 

 Judge James L. Graham 

 United States District Court 

DATE: August 4, 2011 

Case: 2:10-cv-00904-JLG-NMK Doc #: 58 Filed: 08/04/11 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>