`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`