422 CORPORATION et al v. UNITED SURETY & INDEMNITY COMPANY 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:
422 CORPORATION 	CASE NO. 05-03276 BKT
Debtor(s) 	Chapter 11
Adversary No. 05-00251
422 CORPORATION AND BANCO POPULAR DE
PUERTO RICO
Plaintiff(s)
UNITED 	SURETY 	& 	INDEMNITY 	COMPANY;
PUERTO 	RICO 	PUBLIC 	HOUSING
ADMINISTRATION AND JULIE LORENZO
FILED & ENTERED ON 08/06/2007
Defendant(s)
OPINION AND ORDER
This opinion adjudicates the following pending matters: (1) Banco Popular de Puerto Rico’s
(“BPPR”) Motion requesting additional findings of fact (Dkt. No. 156); (2) BPPR’s motion to alter
or amend Judgment pursuant to Rule 9023 (Dkt. No. 158); and (3)United Surety and Indemnity
Company’s (“USIC”) motions in opposition to BPPR’s requests (Dkt. Nos. 166 and 167). The Court
took the matters raised in Plaintiff and Defendant’s motions under advisement.
BPPR’s motions requesting additional findings of fact and to alter or amend judgment rest on
the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b) as incorporated by the Federal Rule of
Bankruptcy Procedure 7052, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) as incorporated by Federal
Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9023. Plaintiff states all relevant facts established by the evidence
presented “must be declared and considered if the judgment is to have any basis on reality, honor due
process and the respective rights of the parties” (See, BPPR’s Motion Dkt. No. 156, page 2). F. R.
Civ. P 52(b) provides that upon motion of a party made not later than ten (10) days after entry of
Case:05-00251-BKT Doc#:172 Filed:08/06/07 Entered:08/06/07 16:58:38 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
judgment, the court may amend its findings of fact, or make additional findings and may amend the
judgment accordingly. Similarly, F. R. Civ. P. 59(e) allows the Court to alter or amend the judgment
if a motion is timely filed no later than ten (10) days after the entry of judgment. Plaintiff BPPR cites
National Metal Finishing Co. v. Barclays American/Commercial, Inc. , 899 F.2d 119 (1990) in
support of its position that the Court may, as a result of amended or additional findings, reverse its
initial judgement. 	More recently, in Raul A. Muriel Morales v. United States of America, 2007 WL
1387279 (D. Puerto Rico, 2007) the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
reiterated that a motion for reconsideration is treated as a motion under Rule 59(e). These motions
should be granted to correct manifest errors of law or to present newly discovered evidence (See,
F.D.I.C. v. World Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992). However, BPPR fails to address an
integral part of the holdings of these cases which state that Rule 59(e) motions are not appropriate if
they merely repeat old arguments previously considered and rejected by this Court. For these reasons,
motions for reconsideration are “extraordinary remedies which should be used sparingly” and are
“typically denied.” (See, National Metal Finishing Co., 899 F.2d at 123). Moreover, the trial court’s
obligation is to clearly relate the findings of fact upon which its decision rests in “brief, definitive,
pertinent findings” to the legal conclusions that are found. (See, Supermercados Econo, Inc. V.
Integrand Assurance Company, 375 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004)).
In order for the judgment to be amended or altered, Plaintiff must bring forth new evidence,
raise manifest errors or novel theories of law that would warrant reconsideration of this Court’s
judgement entered on June 19, 2007. 	This Court finds that BPPR has not met any of these
requirements. 	Accordingly, and having reviewed the record, the Motion Requesting Additional
Findings of Fact Pursuant to FRCP 52(b) and the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to
Case:05-00251-BKT Doc#:172 Filed:08/06/07 Entered:08/06/07 16:58:38 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
FRCP 59(e) are hereby DENIED. In addition, USIC’s requests for the imposition of sanctions,
attorney fees, and costs are hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 06 day of August, 2007.
Brian K. Tester
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
CC: 	ALL PARTIES
Case:05-00251-BKT Doc#:172 Filed:08/06/07 Entered:08/06/07 16:58:38 Desc: Main
Document Page 3 of 3