MAYAGUEZ MEDICAL CENTER DR RAMON E BETANCES INC et v. MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL AND HEALTH SERVICES INC

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. 10-00146
Debtor(s)
MAYAGUEZ MEDICAL CENTER DR
RAMON E BETANCES, INC.
Plaintiff
vs.
MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL AND
HEALTH SERVICES, INC.
Defendant FILED & ENTERED ON 06/14/2012
OPINION AND ORDER
This proceeding is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration for
Additional and Amended Findings of Facts [Dkt. No. 120] and the Defendant’s Opposition to the
Plaintiff’s Motion [Dkt. No. 141]. In essence, the Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its
findings of facts entered on March 12, 2012 [Dkt. No. 113], 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 Mayaguez Medical Center Dr. Emeterio Betances, Inc. (“Plaintiff”)
Case:10-00146-BKT Doc#:152 Filed:06/14/12 Entered:06/14/12 09:43:34 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
against Medical Educational and Health Services, Inc. (“Defendant”) for declaratory judgment,
collection of monies, and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201. For the reasons set forth below,
the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration for Additional and Amended Findings of Facts is
hereby denied.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 52(b) permits “the correction of any manifest errors of law or fact that are discovered,
upon reconsideration, by the trial court.” 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 (1st ed. 2001).
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,” 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:10-00146-BKT Doc#:152 Filed:06/14/12 Entered:06/14/12 09:43:34 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 Plaintiff’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 Plaintiff 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 Defendant and the
Municipality of Mayaguez was validly terminated. This Court found that the Municipality of
Mayaguez did not follow the termination procedure that was clearly established contractually. None
of the Plaintiff's proposed amendments or additions pertain to the process that the Municipality of
Mayaguez used to terminate the contract. Therefore, they are not essential findings for the judgment
made by this Court.
Because the Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration for Additional
and Amended Findings of Fact shall be, and it hereby is, DENIED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 14th day of June, 2012.
Brian K. Tester
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Case:10-00146-BKT Doc#:152 Filed:06/14/12 Entered:06/14/12 09:43:34 Desc: Main
Document Page 3 of 3