`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2139-4, PageID.39463 Filed 05/18/21 Page 2 of 2
`Adelson v. Ocwen Financial, Not Reported in Fed. Supp. (2017)
`
`2017 WL 2930991
`Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
`United States District Court, E.D.
`Michigan, Southern Division.
`
`Wendy ADELSON, Plaintiff,
`v.
`OCWEN FINANCIAL, et al., Defendants.
`
`Case No. 07-13142
`|
`Signed 07/10/2017
`
`Attorneys and Law Firms
`
`Wendell N. Davis, Jr., Wendell N. Davis, Jr. Assoc.,
`Southfield, MI, for Plaintiff.
`
`Nasseem S. Ramin, Thomas M. Schehr, Dykema Gossett,
`Detroit, MI, for Defendants.
`
`Federal Deposit Insurance Company, pro se.
`
`ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
`FOR RECONSIDERATION AND STRIKING
`DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE (Dkts. 95, 97)
`
`TERRENCE G. BERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
`JUDGE
`
`*1 This matter is before the Court on two motions: (1)
`Plaintiff's April 11, 2017 motion for reconsideration (Dkt.
`95) of the Court's March 28, 2017 Order Striking Plaintiff's
`Objections and Adopting the Magistrate's Report and
`Recommendation (Dkt. 93), and (2) Defendant's Response to
`Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. 97).
`
`For the reasons set forth below, it is ORDERED that
`Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED and
`Defendant's response is STRICKEN.
`
`I. ANALYSIS
`The Court may grant a motion for reconsideration if the
`movant satisfactorily shows that: (1) a palpable defect misled
`the parties and the Court; and (2) correcting the defect would
`result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich.
`L.R. 7.1(h)(3). A defect is palpable if it is “obvious, clear,
`unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Olson v. Home Depot, 321
`F. Supp. 2d 872, 874 (E.D. Mich. 2004). The Court will not
`grant a motion for reconsideration “that merely present[s] the
`same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by
`reasonable implication.” Id.
`
`Plaintiff's motion does not identify any palpable defects in the
`Court's Order Striking Plaintiff's Objections and Adopting the
`Magistrate's Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 93). Rather,
`it disagrees with the Court's decision to strike Plaintiff's
`objections and reiterates the objections to the Magistrate's
`Report and Recommendation that Plaintiff raised in prior
`briefs. Because Plaintiff identifies no palpable defect in the
`Court's order, her motion for reconsideration is not well taken
`and must be denied.
`
`In addition, because Defendant's response to Plaintiff's
`motion runs afoul of the Eastern District of Michigan's Local
`Rule 7.1(h)(2) (“no response to [a motion for reconsideration]
`and no oral argument are permitted unless the court orders
`otherwise”), it must be STRICKEN.
`
`Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for
`reconsideration (Dkt. 95) is DENIED and Defendant's
`response is STRICKEN.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`All Citations
`
`Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2017 WL 2930991
`
`End of Document
`
`© 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
` © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`1
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
