United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, District Judge.
Presently pending before the Court are: (1) a Motion to Reconsider Order February 12th filed by pro se Plaintiffs Brian and Melanie Shifrin ("the Shifrins"), [Filing No. 119]; (2) the Shifrins' Motion to Reconsider, [Filing No. 120]; (3) a Motion to Clarify filed by Mr. Shifrin, [Filing No. 126]; and (4) the Shifrins' Motion to File Amended Notice of Appeal; Points and Authorities in Support, [Filing No. 127].
At the outset, the Court notes that the Shifrins' pending motions contain numerous characterizations of the Court's prior rulings. In many cases the Court disagrees with these characterizations, but will not take the time to address those disagreements unless they are relevant to the pending motions. The Court's prior rulings speak for themselves.
MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER
On February 26, 2014, the Shifrins filed two motions to reconsider. [Filing No. 119; Filing No. 120.] The first motion requests that the Court reconsider its February 12, 2014 Order, [Filing No. 118], denying the Shifrins' Motion to Reconsider/or Mediate Dispute Based on Newly Discovered Evidence, [Filing No. 115]. The Shifrins argue that they did not receive a document from the Madison County Assessor which, they claim, shows that the fair market value of their house in 2011 was only approximately $63, 000 until after the Court issued its ruling on Liberty's Motion for Summary Judgment. [Filing No. 119, at ECF pp. 1-2.] Therefore, they argue, they could not have presented the document during briefing of the Motion for Summary Judgment. [Filing No. 119, at ECF p. 2.]
The Court based its denial of the Shifrins' earlier Motion to Reconsider Based on Newly Discovered Evidence in part on its finding that the Shifrins could have presented the document during briefing of the Motion for Summary Judgment, but mainly on its finding that the document did not change its conclusion. [Filing No. 118, at ECF pp. 4-5 ("in any event, even if the Court were to consider the document, it would not change its conclusion. The Court found that the Shifrins did not point to any Policy provision which required Liberty to adjust their claim in its entirety at the outset, so that the house could be totaled.'...Any argument that the assessor's document shows that the fair market value of the house exceeded the cost of repairs is, therefore, of no consequence").] Accordingly, the Shifrins' latest claim that they did not have the assessors document during briefing of the Motion for Summary Judgment does not change the Court's earlier decisions granting summary judgment in favor of Liberty and denying the Shifrins' earlier Motion to Reconsider Based on Newly Discovered Evidence.
The Shifrins' second currently-pending Motion to Reconsider, [Filing No. 120], rehashes the arguments already made either in opposition to Liberty's Motion for Summary Judgment or in support of their earlier and already-denied motions to reconsider. It does not point to "a significant change in the law" or "new facts [which] have been discovered, " or any alleged "error of apprehension" not previously identified in the earlier motions to reconsider. See Nerds On Call, Inc. (Ind.) v. Nerds On Call, Inc. (Cal.) , 598 F.Supp.2d 913, 916 (S.D. Ind. 2008); see also Holland v. City of Gary , 2013 WL 1753131, *3 (N.D. Ind. 2013) (denying motion to reconsider denial of previous motion for reconsideration where "[t]he bulk of Plaintiff's Motion re-raises arguments already ruled on by the Court. There is no newly-discovered evidence or change in the law governing these issues, and Plaintiff...has not identified any error of apprehension by the Court"). As the Court noted in denying the Shifrins' earlier motions to reconsider, arguments that the Court has already considered and rejected "should be directed to the court of appeals." United States v. ITT Educ. Servs. , 2012 WL 266943, *8 (S.D. Ind. 2012).
The Court notes that the Shifrins have filed a Notice of Appeal, [Filing No. 121], and the appeal is currently pending before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. This Court will not entertain serial motions to reconsider, and the issues decided by the Court in connection with Liberty's Motion for Summary Judgment and that the Shifrins wish to dispute must now be raised with the Seventh Circuit. See Good v. Kvaerner U.S. Inc. , 2003 WL 23104240, *1, n.1 (S.D. Ind. 2003) ("A motion to reconsider a ruling denying a motion to reconsider has carried federal civil procedure to new levels of abuse. We trust this will be the last time we will be asked to opine on this matter"). The Shifrins' Motion to Reconsider Order February 12th, [Filing No. 119], and their Motion to Reconsider, [Filing No. 120], are DENIED.
MOTION TO CLARIFY
Mr. Shifrin filed a Motion to Clarify on March 19, 2014, a week after filing a Notice of Appeal. [ See Filing No. 121; Filing No. 126.] In the motion, Mr. Shifrin notes that the Court stated in its February 12, 2014 Order denying the motions to reconsider that the time to appeal ran from the date of that Order. [Filing No. 126, at ECF p. 1.] Mr. Shifrin goes on to state that the Shifrins never received a "Notice of Final Judgment" in connection with the February 12, 2014 Order, and he requests that the Court "clarify if it was required and if so enter proposed order of judgment included with this motion." [Filing No. 126, at ECF p. 2.]
A denial of a motion for reconsideration is not followed by a judgment. Accordingly, no "Notice of Final Judgment" was issued or mailed to the Shifrins when the Court issued its February 12, 2014 Order, as none was required. The only judgment thus far in this case is the January ...