Arnold v. Saferent Solutions LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ANDRE ARNOLD, Plaintiff, Case No. 22-11481 v. Hon. Denise Page Hood

SAFERENT SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Defendant. _______________________________/ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION UNDER RULE 59(e), TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 226]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion under Rule 59(e) to Alter or Amend Judgment. [ECF No. 226]. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on July 16, 2025 prior to filing the instant motion. [ECF No. 224]. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on Plaintiff’s motion pending appeal. See Cochran v. Birkel, 651 F.2d 1219, 1221 (6th Cir.1981) (“As a general rule the filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction and transfers jurisdiction to the court of appeals.”). On appeal, a district court may not alter or enlarge the scope of a judgment pending appeal but only enforce it. NLRB v. Cincinnati Bronze, Inc., 829 F.2d 585, 588 (6th Cir.1987). Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Even if the Court had jurisdiction to review Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion, the Court denies the motion. An amendment of an order after a judgment has been entered is governed by Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 59(e) provides that any motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later

than 28 days after entry of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Motions to alter or amend judgment may be granted if there is a clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law or to prevent manifest injustice.

GenCorp., Inc. v. American Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999). A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to re-hash old arguments, or to proffer new arguments or evidence that the movant could have brought up earlier. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998)(motions under

Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) “are aimed at re consideration, not initial consideration”)(citing FDIC v. World Universal Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.1992)). Parties seeking reconsideration of final orders or judgments must file a motion under Rule 59(e) and

not under the Local Rules. E.D. Mich. LR 7(h)(1). After reviewing Plaintiff’s Motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion merely presents the same issues raised by Plaintiff on numerous papers and ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. The Court

dismissed Plaintiff’s claims based on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court finding that Defendant has shown there is no genuine dispute as to whether it followed reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of Plaintiff’s credit report.

(ECF No. 222, PageID.4547) Plaintiff’s Motion has not shown that the Court committed a clear error of law nor a palpable defect. Plaintiff has not shown that altering the Order and Judgment would prevent manifest injustice. The Motion to

Alter Judgment under Rule 59(e) is denied. In light of the foregoing, IT IS SO ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion under Rule 59(e) to Alter or

Amend Judgment [ECF NO. 226] is DENIED. s/Denise Page Hood Denise Page Hood United States District Judge Dated: August 14, 2025