IN RE: ST. JAMES INCORPORATED, Chapter 11, Debtor. ST. JAMES INCORPORATED, Plaintiff(s), v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant(s).

Case No. 07-48680, Adv. Pro. No. 09-4174.United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.
October 7, 2009

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
THOMAS TUCKER, Bankruptcy Judge

This adversary proceeding is before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment,” filed on October 5, 2009 (Docket # 23, the “Reconsideration Motion”), which this Court construes as a motion for reconsideration of, and for relief from, the Court’s September 23, 2009 “Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment” (Docket # 21), and

The Court having reviewed and considered the Reconsideration Motion, and

The Court finds the Reconsideration 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).

The Court also finds that the allegations in the Reconsideration 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 summary judgment for Defendant.

Page 2

In addition, the Court notes the following. Plaintiff waived the arguments it now makes in the Reconsideration Motion, because Plaintiff failed to make these arguments before the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. See, e.g., In re DSC, Ltd., 486 F.3d 940, 947 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Wiley v. United States, 20 F.3d 222, 226 (6th Cir. 1994) for the proposition that “objections raised for the first time in a reconsideration motion are deemed to have been waived”); see also Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Inidians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 346, 374 (6th Cir. 1998) (“[a] motion under [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 59(e) is not an opportunity to re-argue a case” and should not be used “to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before judgment issued”).

NOW, THEREFORE,

IT IS ORDERED that the Reconsideration Motion should be, and is, DENIED.