Case No. 10-43577, Adv. Pro. No. 10-5469.United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.
November 1, 2010
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
THOMAS TUCKER, Bankruptcy Judge
This case comes before the Court on “Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Plaintiff’s [Amended] Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendant Michelle Taylor,” filed on October 26, 2010 (Docket # 19, the “Motion”), which seeks reconsideration of, and relief from, the October 26, 2010 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket # 18), and
The Court having reviewed and considered the Motion, and
The Court finds the Motion fails to demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties have been misled, and that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof. See Local Rule 9024-1(a)(3).
Further, the Court finds that the allegations in the Motion do not establish excusable neglect under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1), FedR.Bankr.P. 9024, or any other valid ground for relief from the Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Page 2
In addition, the Court notes the following. First, Debtor’s motion is incorrect when it states in paragraph 4 that “the Court was, apparently, not aware that a response [to Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion] had been filed prior to the Court entering its Order granting the Motion based on Defendant’s failure to respond.” This is not so, as footnote 1 in the Court’s summary judgment order shows.
Second, the facts that Defendant’s counsel has filed a motion for leave to withdraw, and that Defendant has filed an application for the appointment of pro bono counsel, do not present a basis for relief from the summary judgment order. To date the Court has not granted Defendant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw, and unless and until the Court does so, such counsel remains Defendant’s counsel in this case. Similarly, to date the Court has not granted Defendant’s application for pro bono counsel. The pendency of these motions do not excuse the failure of Defendant to file a timely response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. And the Motion does not even attempt to explain why no such timely response was filed.
NOW, THEREFORE,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion (Docket # 19) should be, and is, DENIED.
Signed on October 29, 2010
Page 1