throbber
Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2134, PageID.39177 Filed 04/28/21 Page 1 of 2
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`IN RE AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`
`
`Case No. 12-md-2311
`
`Sean F. Cox
`United States District Court Judge
`
`
`
`OPINION AND ORDER
`
`In this multidistrict litigation, the Court denied the motion to intervene filed by Financial
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Recovery Services, LLC (“FRS”) on November 17, 2020. (ECF No. 2101.) FRS timely appealed
`
`to the Sixth Circuit. (ECF No. 2105.) The filing of an appeal “confers jurisdiction on the court of
`
`appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the
`
`appeal.” Taylor v. KeyCorp, 680 F.3d 609, 616 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Griggs v. Provident
`
`Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)); see also 16A Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. &
`
`Proc. Juris. § 3949.1 (5th ed.). FRS has filed its brief, and the case is pending. See Brief for
`
`Appellant, End-Payor Plaintiffs v. Financial Recovery Services, LLC, No. 20-2260 (Apr. 21,
`
`2021). Therefore, the Court no longer has jurisdiction over that motion to intervene.
`
`In the meantime, FRS filed an “Emergency Motion to Compel Acceptance and Processing
`
`of Vehicle Data” with this Court on February 17, 2021. (ECF No. 2114). It asks the Court to “order
`
`Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator to (1) permit FRS and the Insurers a reasonable
`
`opportunity to submit vehicle data in support of their timely filed claim forms” and to “(2) deem
`
`that data timely for the purpose of evaluating FRS and Insurers’ eligibility to recover under the
`
`End-Payor Settlements.” (ECF No. 2114, PageID.38329.) However, FRS remains a non-party to
`
` 1
`
`
`

`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2134, PageID.39178 Filed 04/28/21 Page 2 of 2
`
`this case while its earlier appeal is pending. And it cites no authority for the court to grant such a
`
`“motion to compel acceptance” from a non-party.
`
`The Court could construe the present motion as a motion for reconsideration under Local
`
`Rule 7.1(h). In order to prevail, FRS must show the existence of a palpable defect that misled the
`
`parties and the Court and the correction of such defect would result in a different disposition of
`
`the case. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). The motion also must be filed within 14 days after entry
`
`of the judgment. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(1). FRS has failed to meet either of these
`
`requirements.
`
`
`
`FRS’ motion is hereby DENIED.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: April 28, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/Sean F. Cox
`Sean F. Cox
`U. S. District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`

`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket