United States District Court, N.D. Ohio
OPINION & ORDER [RESOLVING DOC. 405]
S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
October 22, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to
substitute Karen Perry, as Executor of Michael Perry's
Estate, in place of Michael Perry. Later that same day,
Defendants moved the Court to reconsider the order, repeating
its previously asserted arguments.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly authorize
motions to reconsider. The Sixth Circuit, however, has held
that a motion to vacate and reconsider may be treated as a
motion to alter or amend a judgment under Civil Rule
59(e). A court may grant a motion to amend or
alter its judgment if there is (1) a clear error of law; (2)
newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in
controlling law; or (4) manifest injustice.
reconsideration motion does not give an opportunity to repeat
arguments or to present new legal theories. When the
“defendant views the law in a light contrary to that of
this Court, ” its “proper recourse” is not
a motion for reconsideration “but appeal to the Sixth
their instant motion, Defendants make the same arguments they
advanced in their original opposition to the motion to
substitute. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs'
motion to substitute should be denied as
untimely. They contend that the Rule 25 substitution
deadline was triggered on December 19, 2018, when East
Cleveland referenced Perry's death in a court
Court explained in its original order, the December 19, 2018
filing did not trigger the Civil Rule 25 substitution
deadline because the filing did not meet Rule 25's
service requirements-namely, it was not served on nonparty
Karen Perry under Civil Rule 4. Thus, the Court properly
denied Defendants' motion for substitution.
their briefing on this motion, Plaintiffs point out that
Defendants have filed motions to reconsider as a matter of
course in this litigation. Plaintiffs further contend
that such vexatious tactics “should subject defense
counsel-personally-to fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. §
1927”-though they do not seek such fees at this
Court will not impose any sanctions in this order. However,
the Court cautions the Parties to avoid further frivolous
these reasons, the Court DENIES
Defendants' motion for reconsideration. IT IS SO ORDERED.
 Doc 404.
 Doc. 405.
Smith v. Hudson,
600 F.2d 60, 62 (6th Cir. 1979) (“[A] motion which asks
a court to vacate and reconsider, or even to reverse its
prior holding, may properly be treated under Rule 59(e) as a
motion to ...