Journal Register Company and Pulp Finish 1 Company (f/k/a Journal Register Comp

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------X
In re: 	:
: 	Chapter 11
PULP FINISH 1 COMPANY (f/k/a Journal 	: 	Case No. 12-13774 (SMB)
Register Company), et al., 	: 	Jointly Administered
:
Debtors. 	:
---------------------------------------------------------------X
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION TO AMEND
FINDINGS AND FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
A P P E A R A N C E S:
MR. JAMES D. SCHNELLER
Movant Pro Se
430 East Lancaster Avenue E 25
Saint Davids, PA 19087
On January 16, 2014, the Court issued a 26 page Memorandum Decision and Order
Denying Various Forms of Relief Requested by James D. Schneller (the “Decision”). The
Decision chronicled Scheller’s litigiousness and dealt at length with a myriad of motions,
including a motion to reconsider prior rejections of the same arguments. Schneller did not
identify any fact or legal principle that the Court overlooked, and instead, repeated the same
issues he has repeatedly raised unsuccessfully before the Court. He also sought to intervene and
a stay pending appeal. The Court denied all of the requested relief.
Schneller has now filed yet another motion that asks me to amend certain of the findings
in the Decision or reconsider my refusal to reconsider. (See ECF Doc. # 966.) He also takes
issue with the denial of his motion to stay the bankruptcy proceedings. His pleading goes
through the Decision and contests the choice of certain words and phrases, again arguing they are
wrong. He again disagrees with the rejection of arguments he previously made and lost. As
12-13774-smb Doc 967 Filed 02/03/14 Entered 02/03/14 11:28:20 Main Document
Pg 1 of 2

Schneller has failed to identify any material fact or principle of law that was overlooked, or
suggest any other reason that would normally justify the amendment of findings or
reconsideration, the motion is denied.
Furthermore, Schneller’s refusal to accept the finality of any decision issued by this Court
has resulted in numerous motions, motions to reconsider, and now motions to reconsider orders
denying motions to reconsider. Reading and addressing his arguments, which have become
frivolous through sheer repetition despite rejection, have placed an intolerable burden on the
Court, the attorneys for the creditors and on the creditors themselves who must ultimately answer
for counsel’s fees through reduced distributions.
Accordingly, Schneller is directed to show cause at a hearing to be held at 10:00 a.m. on
February 19, 2014 in Room 723 of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District
of New York why an order should not be entered pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) and the Court’s
inherent authority enjoining Schneller from filing any further papers in this Court in this
bankruptcy case except upon further order of this Court. See Satterfield v. Pfizer, Inc., 2005 WL
1765708, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2005) (collecting cases), aff’d, 208 F. Appx. 59 (2d Cir.
2006).
So ordered.
Dated: New York, New York
February 3, 2014
/s/ Stuart M. Bernstein
STUART M. BERNSTEIN
United States Bankruptcy Judge
12-13774-smb Doc 967 Filed 02/03/14 Entered 02/03/14 11:28:20 Main Document
Pg 2 of 2