Boates et al v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
In re 	: 	Chapter 13
SUSAN MAE BOATES 	:
Debtor 	: 	Bankruptcy No. 05-17077
____________________________________
SUSAN MAE BOATES and 	:
RICKY L. BOATES
:
Plaintiffs
v. 	:
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE 	: 	Adversary No. 06-0053
ASSOCIATION
Defendant 	:
.................................................
ORDER
.................................................
AND NOW, this 13th day of March 2006, the plaintiffs in the above-
captioned adversary proceeding, having filed a motion under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023,
incorporating Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e),
And the plaintiffs’ proposed order requests that the defendant’s ejectment
action be nullified from the inception and that plaintiffs’ counsel be awarded attorney’s
fees. Thus, the plaintiffs do not contend in this motion that damages under section 362(h)
were proven at trial, or that punitive damages are warranted,
Case 06-00053-bif Doc 16 Filed 03/13/06 Entered 03/13/06 15:32:50 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 4

And a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) must be
grounded on: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new
evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. See
North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995),
And a Rule 59(e) motion should not relitigate issues that the court already
decided. See Drysdale v. Woerth, 153 F. Supp. 2d 678, 682 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (motion
improper if merely used to reargue matters previously decided); Smith v. City of Chester,
155 F.R.D. 95, 97 (E.D. Pa. 1994); In re Wile, 310 B.R. 514, 516 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2004),
And, moreover, a party may not, in a motion to alter or amend a judgment,
present an argument available earlier but not advanced at trial. Kellogg v. Schreiber (In
re Kellogg), 197 F.3d 1116, 1120 (11th Cir. 1999). “Motions for reconsideration should
be granted sparingly because of the interests in finality and conservation of scarce judicial
resources.” Pennsylvania Ins. Guaranty Ass’n v. Trabosh, 812 F. Supp. 522, 524 (E.D.
Pa. 1992); In re Wile, 310 B.R. at 516,
And a hearing need not be held to determine a motion for reconsideration.
See Mincey v. Head, 206 F.3d 1106, 1124 (11th Cir. 2000) (Rule 59(e) motion denied
without a hearing); United States v. 8136 S. Dobson Street, 125 F.3d 1076, 1086 (7th Cir.
1997) (federal court has “substantial discretion in determining whether to conduct an
evidentiary hearing on a Rule 60(b) motion”); Atkinson v. Prudential Property Co., 43
F.3d 367, 374 (8th Cir. 1994) (same),
And the plaintiffs assert that this court improperly concluded that Federal
Case 06-00053-bif Doc 16 Filed 03/13/06 Entered 03/13/06 15:32:50 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 4

National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”) neither knew nor should have known of Mrs.
Boates’ pending bankruptcy filing prior to August 17, 2005, when the debtor’s attorney
sent a letter to FNMA’s counsel. In their motion, however, the plaintiffs cite to no
evidence in the record to support this contention. They rely only upon their “logic” and
surmise. Thus, they do not maintain that this court overlooked evidence on this point,
And the plaintiffs’ other contentions are simply rearguments of legal
positions rejected by the earlier decision, for which defendant’s position is already known
and a written response thereto would be unnecessary,
Accordingly, as there would not be any benefit to the parties in scheduling
oral argument on this motion,
It is hereby ordered that the motion under Rule 9023 is denied.
____________________
BRUCE FOX
United States Bankruptcy Judge
copies to:
Leslie J. Rase, Esquire
Von Rosenstiel Law Office
649 South Avenue, Suite 6
P.O. Box 307
Secane, PA 19018
David A. Scholl, Esquire
Regional Bankruptcy Center of SE PA
Law Office of David A. Scholl
6 St Albans Avenue
Newtown Square, PA 19073
Case 06-00053-bif Doc 16 Filed 03/13/06 Entered 03/13/06 15:32:50 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 4

Ms. Susan Mae Boates
Mr. Ricky L. Boates
1024 Langley Street
Trainer, PA 19061
Case 06-00053-bif Doc 16 Filed 03/13/06 Entered 03/13/06 15:32:50 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 4