CRUZ v. PRATS VEGA

1
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:
MANUEL R PRATS 	VEGA 	CASE NO. 09-08785 BKT
CHAPTER 11
Debtor(s) 	ADVERSARY NO. 10-00021
BRANDA CRUZ
Plaintiff
MANUEL R PRATS 	VEGA 	FILED & ENTERED ON 06/22/2010
Defendant(s)
OPINION AND ORDER
This proceeding is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or
Amend Order [Dkt. No. 20] and Defendant’s Opposition [Dkt. No. 23]. For the
reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend order is hereby
DENIED.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure 9023, which makes Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 applicable to
bankruptcy proceedings. This rule states that “[a]ny motion to alter or amend a
judgment must be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.”Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e). In seeking reconsideration, “the moving party must either clearly
establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence.”
Marie v. Allied Home Mortgage Corp., 402 F. 3rd 1, 7 n. 2 (1st Cir. 2005) quoting
Pomerleau v. W. Springfield Pub. Sch., 362 F. 3d 143, 146 n. 2 (1st Cir. 2004).
In Marie, the First Circuit also cited a leading treatise, noting four grounds
for granting a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
59 (e). The grounds are “manifest errors of law or fact, newly discovered or
previously unavailable evidence, manifest injustice, and an intervening change in
Case:10-00021-BKT Doc#:24 Filed:06/22/10 Entered:06/22/10 17:13:10 Desc: Main
Document Page 1 of 2

2
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
controlling law.” Marie v. Allied Home Mortgage Corp., 402 F 3rd at 7 (citing 11
C. Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995)).
Reconsideration of a judgment under Rule 59 is an extraordinary remedy that
is used sparingly and only when the need for justice outweighs the interests
advanced by a final judgment. It is directed at allowing a court to correct it
own errors. White v. New Hampshire Dept. of Employment Security, 455 U.S. 445,
450 (1982).
Contemporary with the motion under Rule 59, Plaintiff filed a motion for
leave to amend the complaint and an amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges that if
the 	Court 	fails 	to 	consider 	the 	amended 	complaint, 	the 	Court 	would 	deprive
plaintiff 	of 	her 	rights 	and 	as 	such 	would 	commit 	a 	manifest 	error 	of 	law.
Unfortunately, Rule 59 cannot be used to bring to the Court’s consideration a
pleading filed after the subject judgment was entered. The Rule is clear that the
Court should amend its judgment if a manifest error of law was committed or there
is newly found evidence. Plaintiff’s motion is defective inasmuch as it alleges
the manifest error of law by this Court would be by failing to allow and consider
her post judgment motion, i.e. the amended complaint.
Absent a manifest error of law or newly found evidence, the court is not in
a position to alter or amend its previous order. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to
alter or amend the order dismissing the captioned adversary proceeding is hereby
denied. The case remains dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 22 day of June, 2010.
Brian K. Tester
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Case:10-00021-BKT Doc#:24 Filed:06/22/10 Entered:06/22/10 17:13:10 Desc: Main
Document Page 2 of 2