Jenkins et al v. Macatawa Bank Corporation et al, No. 1:2003cv00321 - Document 1317 (W.D. Mich. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying (1306) motion for reconsideration in case 1:03-cv-00321-RHB; denying (1205) motion for reconsideration in case 1:05-cv-00460-RHB; denying (1206) motion for reconsideration in case 1:05-cv-00499-RHB; denying (564) motion for reconsideration in case 1:07-md-01846-RHB; denying (509) motion for reconsideration in case 1:07-cv-00738-RHB; denying (492) motion for reconsideration in case 1:07-cv-00750-RHB; denying (465) motion for reconsideration in case 1:07-cv-00751-RHB; denying (502) motion for reconsideration in case 1:07-cv-00775-RHB ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell ; this document appears in the following associated cases: 1:07-md-01846-RHB et al.(Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION IN RE TRADE PARTNERS, INC. INVESTOR LITIGATION, File No. 1:07-MD-1846 HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL / MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Counterdefendant Gaile Russ s motion for reconsideration of the Court s December 21, 2009, order granting partial summary judgment as to liability only in favor of Counterplaintiffs and Third-Party Plaintiffs Macatawa Bank and Macatawa Bank Corporation (collectively Macatawa ) and against all remaining Counterdefendants and Third-Party Defendants. (Dkt. No. 564, Mot. for Reconsid.; Dkt. No. 563, 12/21/2009 Order & Partial J.) One who moves for reconsideration must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties have been misled, but also show that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof. W.D. Mich. LCivR 7.4(a). In her motion for reconsideration, Russ does not identify a palpable defect by which the Court was misled. Instead, she presents an argument that was not clearly presented in her original opposition to the motion. Russ s new argument is that even if the Adamson complaint is construed to allege a claim based on the sale of unregistered securities under Oklahoma law, the claims under Oklahoma law were time-barred under 71 Okla. St. Ann. ยง 1-509(J)(1). As this Court routinely has held, a party may not use a motion for reconsideration to raise new arguments that could have been brought before. ITT Indus, Inc. v. BorgWarner, Inc., No. 1:05-CV-674, 2006 WL 2811310, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 28, 2006); see also Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 357, 374 (6th Cir. 1998) (discussing the similar standard under Rule 59(e) and stating that a party is not permitted to raise new legal arguments on a motion for reconsideration that could have been raised earlier). Moreover, even if Russ s new argument is properly before this Court, it lacks merit. Even if Russ had a possible defense to her investors unregistered securities claim under Oklahoma law, Russ has not shown that she did not face potential liability from her investors for selling unregistered securities, and she has not shown that Macatawa s settlement of the unregistered securities claims brought by Russ s investors was unreasonable or lacking in good faith. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Counterdefendant Gaile Russ s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 564) is DENIED. Dated: January 14, 2010 /s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
