Jorge Evelio Arbelaez, Sr. v. Enclave Shores Condominium Association, Inc.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-10893
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 1:19-cv-21054-KMW; 15-15729-BKC-LMI
JORGE EVELIO ARBELAEZ, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ENCLAVE SHORES CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 9, 2021)
USCA11 Case: 20-10893 Date Filed: 02/09/2021 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jorge Arbelaez, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order
affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of the
denial of his motion to reopen Enclave Shores Condominium Association Inc.’s
(“Enclave Shores”) bankruptcy case. On appeal, he argues that Enclave Shores
fraudulently transferred assets and says federal courts are not “powerless” to
prevent the United States Bankruptcy Code from being used to commit such
fraud.1 After careful review, we affirm.
“As the second court of review of a bankruptcy court’s judgment, we
independently examine the factual and legal determinations of the bankruptcy
court and employ the same standards of review as the district court.” In re
Gonzalez, 832 F.3d 1251, 1253 (11th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks omitted). We
thus review de novo the bankruptcy court’s legal conclusions and review factual
findings for clear error. Id. We review the denial of a Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion.2 Jacobs v.
Tempur-Pedic Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1343 & n.20 (11th Cir. 2010).
1 We liberally construe Arbelaez’s pro se filings. Waldman v. Conway, 871 F.3d 1283,
1289 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam).
2 Rule 59 is made applicable to bankruptcy cases through Federal Rule of Bankruptcy
Procedure 9023. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023.
USCA11 Case: 20-10893 Date Filed: 02/09/2021 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
A Rule 59 motion for reconsideration may be granted for newly-discovered
evidence or manifest errors of law or fact but cannot be used to relitigate old
matters, raise arguments, or present evidence that could have been raised before
the court entered judgment. Jacobs, 626 F.3d at 1344. Arbelaez seems to argue
the district court erred by failing to consider the new evidence he presented to
show Enclave Shores engaged in fraud. However, he summarily asserts he “filed
the substantial evidence of fraud” without asserting any clear argument to this
Court to support that a fraud was perpetrated on the bankruptcy court. See
Appellant’s Br. at 34.
Neither does Arbelaez present any newly-discovered evidence or point to
any manifest errors of law that would warrant granting his Rule 59(e) motion for
reconsideration. The facts he relied on to support fraud in the bankruptcy court
simply describe an ordinary bankruptcy proceeding. And, as the bankruptcy court
found, the actions complained of “were addressed in the bankruptcy case, or
associated adversary proceedings,” which “became final several years ago.” The
district court thus did not err by finding that Arbelaez “did not provide any basis to
warrant the relief he requested” and affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of
Arbelaez’s Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to
reopen the bankruptcy case.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 20-10893 Date Filed: 02/09/2021 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --