MAYAGUEZ MEDICAL CENTER DR RAMON EMETERIO BETANCES v. MAYAGUEZ ADVANCED RADIOTHERAPY CENTER

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. 09-04540
Chapter 	11
MAYAGUEZ ADVANCED
RADIOTHERAPY CENTER 	Adversary No. 10-00150
Debtor(s)
MAYAGUEZ MEDICAL CENTER DR
RAMON EMETERIO BETANCES INC
Plaintiff
vs.
MAYAGUEZ ADVANCED
RADIOTHERAPY CENTER
Defendant
This proceeding is before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration for
Additional and Amended Findings of Fact [Dkt. No. 128] and the Defendant's Opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion [Dkt. No. 145]. In essence, the Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its
findings of facts entered on March 12, 2012 [Dkt. No. 121], 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”) against
Mayaguez Advanced Radiotherapy Center (“Defendant”) on September 16, 2010 for declaratory
OPINION AND ORDER
Case:10-00150-BKT Doc#:155 Filed:06/11/12 Entered:06/11/12 13:07:02 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, collection of monies, and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201. For the reasons set
forth below, the Plaintiff's Motion for Additional and Amended Findings of Fact 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
previously heard and rejected by the court. In this case, none of the Plaintiff’s proposed amendments
Case:10-00150-BKT Doc#:155 Filed:06/11/12 Entered:06/11/12 13:07:02 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
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 parties was validly
terminated. This Court found that the Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff 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 11th day of June, 2012.
Brian K. Tester
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Case:10-00150-BKT Doc#:155 Filed:06/11/12 Entered:06/11/12 13:07:02 Desc: Main
Document Page 3 of 3