Breitburn Energy Partners LP, et al.,

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------X
In re: 	:
: 	Chapter 11
BREITBURN ENERGY 	:
PARTNERS LP, et al., 1 	: 	Case No.: 16-11390 (SMB)
:
Debtors. 	:
------------------------------------------------X
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR REARGUMENT
A P P E A R A N C E S:
DOROTHY MAE COOLEY
Pro Se
1291 Harvest East
Traverse City, Michigan 49856
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10153
Ray C. Schrock, Esq.
Stephen Karotkin, Esq.
Of Counsel
STUART M. BERNSTEIN
United States Bankruptcy Judge:
By Memorandum Decision Expunging and Disallowing the Cooley Claims, dated
Aug. 18, 2017 (the “Memorandum Decision”) (ECF Doc. # 1513) and subsequent Order
Granting Debtors’ Fifth Omnibus Objection to Claims with Respect to Proofs of Claim
1 	The debtors in these chapter 11 cases (collectively, the “Debtors”) are as follows: Breitburn Energy
Partners LP; Breitburn GP LLC; Breitburn Operating LP; Breitburn Operating GP LLC; Breitburn
Management Company LLC; Breitburn Finance Corporation; Alamitos Company; Beaver Creek Pipeline,
L.L.C.; Breitburn Florida LLC; Breitburn Oklahoma LLC; Breitburn Sawtelle LLC; Breitburn Transpetco
GP LLC; Breitburn Transpetco LP LLC; GTG Pipeline LLC; Mercury Michigan Company, LLC; Phoenix
Production Company; QR Energy, LP; QRE GP, LLC; QRE Operating, LLC; Terra Energy Company LLC;
Terra Pipeline Company LLC; and Transpetco Pipeline Company, L.P.
16-11390-dsj Doc 2015 Filed 01/02/18 Entered 01/02/18 10:16:49 Main Document
Pg 1 of 5

2
No. 2053 and 2405 (Cooley Royalty Claims), dated Sept. 11, 2017 (ECF Doc. # 1553)
(“Expunging Order”), the Court expunged two proofs of claim filed by Dorothy Mae
Cooley (“Cooley”). On September 25, 2017, as supplemented on September 26, 2017,
the Court received a document faxed by Cooley entitled Dorothy Mae Cooley Objects to
Debtors Order Dated September 11, 2017, Disallowing and Expunging Claimants
Prime Facie Proof of Claim No# 2053 and 2405, the Cooley Royalty Claims for Lack of
Evidence: with Request for Proper Order Approving Claimant Prima Facie Proof of
Claim (ECF Doc. ## 1587, 1588) (collectively, “Cooley’s Motion).2 The Court
determined to treat Cooley’s submission as a timely motion for a new trial or to alter or
amend the Order pursuant to Rule 9023 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure,
or for reargument pursuant to Rule 9023-1 of the Local Rules of this Court. (Order
Regarding Cooley Claims, dated Oct. 2, 2017 (ECF Doc. # 1605.) The Debtors filed a
timely opposition (see Objection of Debtors to Motion of Dorothy Mae Cooley to the
Order Dated September 11, 2017 Granting Debtors’ Fifth Omnibus Objection to Claims
with Respect to Proofs of Claim No. 2053 and 2405 (Cooley Royalty Claims), dated
Oct. 16, 2017 (ECF Doc. # 1704)), and Cooley made several more submissions all of
which focus on the two alleged errors discussed below. 3
For the reasons that follow, Cooley’s motion is denied.
2 	The Court has corrected obvious typographical errors in the title of the document.
3 	See ECF Doc. ## 1570, 1587, 1588, 1745, 1795 and 1873.
16-11390-dsj Doc 2015 Filed 01/02/18 Entered 01/02/18 10:16:49 Main Document
Pg 2 of 5

3
DISCUSSION
Rule 9023-1 of the Local Rules of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District
of New York (“Local Bankruptcy Rule 9023-1”) governs the Motion and provides that a
reargument “motion shall set forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which
counsel believes the Court has not considered.” The standards governing a motion to
alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure apply to a motion for reargument under Local Bankruptcy Rule 9023-1. 3939
WPR Funding LLC v. Campbell (In re Campbell), 539 B.R. 66, 75 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)
(citation omitted); Family Golf Ctrs., Inc. v. Acushnet Co. (In re Randall’s Island
Family Golf Ctrs., Inc.), 290 B.R. 55, 61 n. 4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2003). The movant must
show that the court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that might
materially have influenced its earlier decision. Alternatively, the movant must
demonstrate the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Perez v.
Progenic Pharm., Inc., 46 F. Supp. 3d 310, 314 (S.D.N.Y. 2014); accord In re Asia
Global Crossing, Ltd., 332 B.R. 520, 524 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005). “These criteria are
strictly construed against the moving party so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues
that have been considered fully by the court,” Griffin Indus., Inc. v. Petrojam, Ltd., 72 F.
Supp. 2d 365, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 1999); accord Liberty Media Corp. v. Vivendi Universal,
S.A., 861 F. Supp. 2d 262, 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), and a motion for reargument is not an
opportunity to present the case under new theories, secure a rehearing on the merits, or
otherwise take a “second bite at the apple.” Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 144
(2d Cir. 1998); see also Vivendi Universal, 861 F. Supp. 2d at 265 (“A motion for
reconsideration is not an opportunity for making new arguments that could have been
16-11390-dsj Doc 2015 Filed 01/02/18 Entered 01/02/18 10:16:49 Main Document
Pg 3 of 5

4
previously advanced, nor is it a substitute for appeal.”) (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted).
The background to Cooley’s claims and the reasons why the Court expunged them
are set forth in the Memorandum Decision. Cooley’s Motion and her other post-
Expunging Order submissions argue that the Court erroneously concluded that she had
received all of the royalties to which she is entitled. Her arguments emanate from two
factual assumptions. The first concerns the division of royalties between Raymond
Cooley, Cooley’s father, and Jean Cooley, her stepmother, in their 1993 divorce. The
Michigan matrimonial court awarded the oil, gas and mineral rights, which included the
right to receive royalties pursuant to leases, 40% to Jean and 60% to Raymond,
regardless of who held title to the rest of the interests relevant to the related real
property. (Memorandum Decision at 4.) Cooley contends that the award was invalid on
a variety of theories, and charges that Jean committed criminal contempt, fraud and
larceny in the Michigan divorce proceedings. (E.g., Cooley’s Motion at 9-11.) The
second, her predominant theme, involves Cooley’s unswerving belief that she was
Raymond’s sole legatee, and she should receive all of the royalties that would have been
due Raymond, and should not be forced to split Raymond’s 60% share with her two
siblings. (E.g. id. at 13 (“As a matter of law, the Trust of Raymond Cooley was
atomically invalid; as a matter of law the wills [sic] sole named devisee [Cooley] tool
[sic] absolute title.”)
In essence, Cooley seeks to collaterally attack the Michigan courts’ decisions and
orders and wants the Court to reexamine the circumstances surrounding the divorce
and the legal effects of Raymond’s will. Notably, she does not contend that Breitburn
16-11390-dsj Doc 2015 Filed 01/02/18 Entered 01/02/18 10:16:49 Main Document
Pg 4 of 5

5
underpaid her if the divorce stands and Cooley and her two siblings are required to
share Raymond’s portion of the royalty granted in the divorce. For the reasons
discussed in the Memorandum Decision, the Court declines to look behind the rulings
of the Michigan courts. Accordingly, Cooley’s Motion is denied.
So ordered.
Dated: New York, New York
January 2, 2018
/s/ Stuart M. Bernstein
STUART M. BERNSTEIN
United States Bankruptcy Judge
16-11390-dsj Doc 2015 Filed 01/02/18 Entered 01/02/18 10:16:49 Main Document
Pg 5 of 5