MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL AND HEALTH SERVICES INC et al v. MUNICIPALITY OF MAYAGUEZ et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
IN RE: 	CASE NO. 10-4905
Chapter 	11
MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL AND
HEALTH SERVICES INC 	Adversary No. 10-00148
Debtor(s)
MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL AND
HEALTH SERVICES INC
Plaintiff
vs.
MUNICIPALITY OF MAYAGUEZ, ET
ALS.
Defendant FILED & ENTERED ON 06/11/2012
This proceeding is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration to Amend
and Make Additional Findings [Dkt. No. 256] and the Plaintiff's Opposition to the Defendants'
Motion [Dkt. No. 291]. In essence, the Defendant requests that the Court reconsider its findings of
facts entered on March 12, 2012 [Dkt. No. 249], under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure
7052 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52. These findings of facts pertain to a complaint filed by
Medical Educational and Health Services, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) against the Municipality of Mayaguez, Et
OPINION AND ORDER
Case:10-00148-BKT Doc#:306 Filed:06/11/12 Entered:06/11/12 15:16:26 Desc: Main
Document Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Als. (“Defendants”) for among other causes of action - recovery of money/property, injunctive relief
and 	declaratory judgment. 	For 	the reasons 	set 	forth 	below, 	the Defendant's 	Motion 	for
Reconsideration to Amend and Make Additional Findings is hereby denied.
Rule 52(b) permits “the correction of any manifest errors of law or fact that are discovered,
upon reconsideration, by the trial court.”
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
National Metal Finishing Company v. Barclays American
Commercial, Inc., 899 F.2d 119, 122 (1st Cir. 1990). Rule 52(b) motions apply only when a party
demonstrates a manifest error of law or fact, or in limited situations to present newly discovered
evidence. In re Braithwaite, 197 B.R. 834, 835 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1996) (citing, Fontenot v. Mesa
Petroleum Co., 791 F.2d 1207, 1219 (5th Cir. 1986)). “A motion to amend the Court's findings of
fact should be based on a ‘manifest error of law or mistake of fact, and a judgment should not be set
aside except for substantial reasons.’” In re Novak, 223 B.R. 363, 371 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1997)
(citing Ramos v. Boehringer Manheim Corp., 896 F. Supp. 1213, 1214 (S.D.Fla. 1994)). Manifest
error is defined as “an error that is obvious and indisputable and that warrants reversal on appeal”.
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law
Motions to amend should not be "employed to introduce evidence that was available at trial
but was not proffered, to relitigate old issues, to advance new theories, or to secure a rehearing on the
merits,”
(1st ed. 2001).
Fontenot v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 791 F.2d 1207, 1219 (5th Cir. 1986). Rule 52(b) was not
created 	to 	allow 	litigants 	to 	relitigate 	old 	issues. 	National 	Metal 	Finishing 	Co. 	v.
BarclaysAmerican/Commercial, Inc., 899 F.2d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 1990).
III. DISCUSSION
Rule 52(b) is not intended to allow litigants to prosper by recounting arguments that were
Case:10-00148-BKT Doc#:306 Filed:06/11/12 Entered:06/11/12 15:16:26 Desc: Main
Document Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
previously heard and rejected by the court. In this case, none of the Defendant’s proposed
amendments demonstrate that the original findings contain a manifest error, and all of the proposed
additions were previously heard at trial and rejected by this Court. The Defendant does not argue that
it is presenting newly discovered evidence, and its proposed amendments and additions do not
demonstrate a manifest error of law or fact.
In addition, the proposed amendments and additions fall outside the scope of the trial. The
scope of this trial was limited to determining whether the contract between the parties was validly
terminated. This Court found that the Defendant did not follow the termination procedure that was
clearly established contractually. None of the Defendant's proposed amendments or additions pertain
to the process that the Defendant used to terminate the contract. Therefore, they are not essential
findings for the judgment made by this Court.
Because the Defendant has failed to establish a manifest error - and because the proposed
additional findings of fact were previously heard at trial and rejected by this Court - the court finds
that the Defendant is not entitled to reconsideration under F.R.B.P., Rule 7052 or F.R.C.P., Rule
52(b).
WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration to Amend
and Make Additional Findings of Fact shall be, and it hereby is, DENIED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 11th day of June, 2012.
Brian K. Tester
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Case:10-00148-BKT Doc#:306 Filed:06/11/12 Entered:06/11/12 15:16:26 Desc: Main
Document Page 3 of 3