DE JESUS RIVERA et al v. GE CAPITAL CORP OF PR

1
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
In re: 	:
:
WILFREDO DE JESUS RIVERA 	: 	Case No. 00-00801(GAC)
SONIA M. HERNANDEZ MELENDEZ, 	:
:
Debtors 	: 	Chapter 13
___________________________________:
:
WILFREDO DE JESUS RIVERA 	:
SONIA M. HERNANDEZ MELENDEZ, 	:
:
Plaintiffs 	:
:
v. 	: 	Adv. No. 04-00165
:
GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORP. 	:
OF Puerto Rico, 	:
:
Defendant 	:
___________________________________:
DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	Factual Background
The issue pending before this court is whether to reconsider
a decision and order previously issued by the Court. In a Decision
and Order dated November 20, 2007, the Court concluded that General
Electric Corp. (“GEC”) was liable to the debtors for economic loss
in the amount of $25,000.00 (docket #61). On December 6, 2007, GEC
filed a motion for reconsideration and for additional findings of
fact 	and 	conclusions 	of 	law 	pursuant 	to 	Federal 	Rules 	of 	Civil
Procedure 52 and 59(5), made applicable in bankruptcy, by Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7052 and 9023 (docket #63).
In 	its 	motion, 	GEC 	requests 	that 	the 	Court 	eliminates 	the
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:73 Filed:02/11/09 Entered:02/11/09 10:14:08 Desc: Main
Document Page 1 of 13

2
amount 	of 	$25,000.000 	awarded 	to 	the 	debtors 	for 	their 	economic
loss. 	GEC 	makes 	various 	arguments 	in 	support 	of 	its 	position,
including: (1) that economic loss was not specifically plead in the
complaint; 	(2) 	that 	the 	debtors 	filed 	a 	motion 	to 	amend 	the
pleadings (Docket #41), which was denied by the Court and thus, no
damages could be presented at the hearing regarding their economic
loss; 	(3) 	that 	the 	facts 	that 	the 	Court 	used 	to 	determine 	the
amount 	awarded 	were 	not 	specifically 	plead 	in 	the 	complaint; 	(4)
that 	GEC 	was 	given 	no 	opportunity 	for 	discovery 	or 	analysis 	to
corroborate the value and depreciation of the truck; and (5) that
debtors’ 	testimony 	confirmed 	that 	they 	had 	purchased 	a 	new 	truck
eleven 	days 	prior 	to 	the 	filing 	of 	the 	adversary 	complaint 	and
thus, 	it 	had 	to 	be 	stricken 	from 	the 	complaint 	that 	the 	debtors
were precluded from buying another truck because of GEC’s lien.
On December 17, 2007, the debtors filed an opposition to GEC’s
motion 	for 	reconsideration 	(docket 	#65), 	arguing 	that 	the 	motion
for 	reconsideration 	was 	untimely 	because 	it 	was 	not 	filed 	within
the 	ten 	days 	permitted 	by 	Federal 	Rule 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	59 	and
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002. The parties filed sur-
replies without leave of the Court (dockets #67, #68 and #70).
II. Procedural History
On 	July 	13, 	2004, 	the 	debtors 	filed 	the 	present 	adversary
proceeding, seeking damages for violation of the automatic stay and
violation of the discharge injunction (docket #1). The debtors also
sought transfer of title to the vehicle in which GEC had a security
interest. 	The 	debtors 	alleged 	that 	since 	the 	discharge, 	they
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:73 Filed:02/11/09 Entered:02/11/09 10:14:08 Desc: Main
Document Page 2 of 13

3
approached 	GEC 	on 	several 	occasions 	to 	have 	title 	to 	the 	vehicle
transferred to the debtors and GEC refused. The debtors also stated
that 	GEC 	retained 	a 	check 	destined 	to 	the 	debtors 	for 	vehicle
repairs. The debtors requested damages based on these acts.
GEC filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment (docket
#15). A hearing was held on March 8, 2005, where the Court ordered
the 	debtors 	to 	reply 	to 	GEC’s 	motion 	for 	summary 	judgment, 	and
fixed the discovery deadline for April, 29, 2005 (docket #16). The
debtors filed a reply to GEC’s request for summary judgment (Docket
#17). The Court scheduled the pretrial hearing for August 2, 2005
(docket #22). The debtors filed a pretrial brief on July 31, 2005
(docket #26). GEC never filed its part of the pretrial brief.
On February 24, 2006, the Court entered a Decision and Order
granting 	the 	debtor’s 	motion 	requesting 	partial 	summary 	judgment
because it concluded that GEC violated the discharged injunction by
trying 	to 	collect 	interest 	on 	the 	debt, 	which 	was 	paid 	in 	full,
pursuant 	to 	the 	confirmed 	plan 	and 	the 	stipulation. 	The 	Court
scheduled an evidentiary hearing for June 9, 2006, to determine the
damages suffered by debtors(docket #31).
Thereafter, 	GEC 	filed 	a 	subpoena 	for 	debtors 	to 	attend 	a
deposition 	(docket 	#34) 	and 	the 	debtors 	replied 	with 	a 	motion 	to
dismiss the subpoena (docket #35). The Court granted the debtors’
motion because the discovery deadline was set for April, 29, 2005
(docket 	#37). 	Then, 	the 	debtors 	filed 	a 	motion 	requesting
permission 	to 	file 	supplemental 	pleadings 	(docket 	#41) 	and 	the
Court entered an order scheduling the matter to be heard the same
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:73 Filed:02/11/09 Entered:02/11/09 10:14:08 Desc: Main
Document Page 3 of 13

4
day 	of 	the 	evidentiary 	hearing 	(docket 	#42). 	GEC 	filed 	an
opposition to debtors motion to file supplemental pleading (docket
#43) 	and 	also 	filed 	a 	motion 	to 	strike 	and 	eliminate 	allegations
from the complaint and for sanctions (docket #44). Finally, on June
9, 	2006, 	the 	Court 	held 	the 	evidentiary 	hearing 	(Transcript 	at
dockets #46 and #54).
At 	the 	evidentiary 	hearing, 	the 	parties 	presented 	the
testimony 	of 	De 	Jesus, 	Hernandez 	and 	the 	psychiatrist, 	Dr.
Katherine Sanz (“Dr. Sanz”), for the plaintiffs. No witnesses were
presented 	for 	the 	defendant. 	The 	parties 	introduced 	two 	exhibits
each. After the evidence was presented and the documentary evidence
admitted, the Court requested memorandums of law and the matter was
taken 	under 	advisement. 	On 	August 	15, 	2006, 	GEC 	filed 	the
memorandum of law (dockets #50 and #60) and on October 5, 2006, the
debtors filed their memorandum of law (docket #55).
III. 	Evidence 	and 	arguments 	presented 	by 	the 	parties 	at 	the
Evidentiary Hearing
A. Debtors
At 	the 	hearing, 	the 	debtors 	argued 	that 	Federal 	Rule 	of
Bankruptcy Procedure 7015 permits a party to serve a supplemental
pleading 	setting 	forth 	transactions 	or 	occurrences 	that 	have
transpired since the date of the initial complaint. They contended
that when they filed the complaint, the depreciation of the truck
from 	the 	time 	that 	the 	complaint 	was 	filed 	until 	the 	evidentiary
hearing had not yet occurred. Thus, they wanted to supplement their
complaint in order to present evidence as to the value of the truck
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:73 Filed:02/11/09 Entered:02/11/09 10:14:08 Desc: Main
Document Page 4 of 13

5
and the depreciation. Regarding discovery, the debtors argued that
they 	objected 	to 	the 	subpoena 	because 	it 	was 	filed 	after 	the
discovery 	deadline 	had 	passed 	and 	that 	they 	never 	answered 	the
interrogatories because they forgot and because GEC never requested
them. Finally, they argued that GEC wanted to start discovery after
the bar date for discovery set by the Court.
The debtors introduced two exhibits: the certificate of title
of 	the 	Peterbuilt 	truck 	(Exhibit 	1) 	and 	a 	check 	in 	the 	amount 	of
$1,166.00, 	paid 	to 	the 	order 	of 	De 	Jesus 	and 	GEC 	(Exhibit 	2). 	De
Jesus 	testified 	that 	he 	has 	been 	a 	trucker 	for 	forty 	years
(Transcript 	page 	28, 	line 	11), 	that 	he 	is 	a 	partner 	of 	the
Cooperativa de Camioneros (Transcript page 37 line 16) and that he
is 	the 	owner 	of 	two 	trucks, 	the 	Peterbuilt 	1997 	and 	a 	Kensworth
2005, purchased in 2004 (Transcript page 43 line 15).
As to the debtors’ economic loss, De Jesus testified that he
went 	to 	GEC’s 	office 	four 	times 	to 	have 	the 	title 	transferred 	to
him free of the lien (Transcript page 49 line 8). He also testified
that 	he 	could 	not 	use 	the 	truck 	because 	the 	Public 	Service
Commission 	did 	not 	give 	him 	the 	authorization 	due 	to 	GEC’s 	lien
(Transcript 	page 	46 	line 	25 	and 	page 	74 	line 	1-3); 	that 	he 	could
not 	sell 	the 	truck 	because 	the 	title 	to 	the 	truck 	had 	GEC’s 	lien
(Transcript 	page 	86 	line 	25 	and 	page 	87 	line 	1); 	that 	he 	had 	a
potential buyer that was willing to pay $70,000.00 in the year 2004
(Transcript 	page 	53 	line 	24 	and 	page 	82 	line 	25), 	but 	that 	the
truck 	has 	depreciated 	and 	he 	believed 	the 	same 	to 	be 	worth
$45,000.00 at the time of filing (Transcript page 61 lines 13-14).
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:73 Filed:02/11/09 Entered:02/11/09 10:14:08 Desc: Main
Document Page 5 of 13

6
De Jesus also testified that he could not use the truck as a trade-
in and that he wanted to use the remainder of the sale’s price for
home improvements and his children’s education (Transcript page 54,
lines 2-12).
B. GEC
At the hearing, GEC argued that it did conduct discovery. GEC
argued that two days before the evidentiary hearing they visited a
website called “DESCO TECH” (page 5 lines 19-20), and realized that
one 	of 	the 	allegations 	of 	the 	complaint 	was 	completely 	false
because the debtors had acquired a new truck before the adversary
proceeding was filed and thus, they were not economically precluded
from 	buying 	a 	new 	truck, 	as 	they 	stated 	in 	the 	complaint. 	GEC
asserts that it filed a subpoena for the debtor to go a deposition
but, the debtors did not attended. GEC also served the debtors with
interrogatories, 	which 	were 	never 	answered. 	Finally, 	GEC 	asserts
that 	it 	requested 	a 	meeting 	to 	discuss 	the 	damages 	allegedly
suffered by the debtors to settle the case but, the debtors never
agreed to it.
GEC introduced two exhibits: a list of cars in debtors’ name
(Exhibit 	A) 	and 	debtors’ 	“Schedule 	B” 	(Exhibit 	B). 	GEC 	argued 	at
the hearing that De Jesus bought a new truck ten days before filing
the present adversary proceeding. Therefore it contends, that the
debtors’ allegations regarding economic preclusion as to buying a
new truck are false and should be stricken from the complaint. GEC
contends 	that 	the 	debtors 	could 	have 	sold 	the 	truck 	and 	paid
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:73 Filed:02/11/09 Entered:02/11/09 10:14:08 Desc: Main
Document Page 6 of 13

7
$3,800.00 	to 	GEC 	to 	cancel 	the 	lien 	and 	then, 	file 	the 	adversary
proceeding to recover the money.
IV. Discussion
There are two matters pending before the Court. The first is
whether 	GEC’s 	motion 	for 	reconsideration 	is 	untimely. 	The 	second
issue 	is 	whether 	the 	debtors 	were 	erroneously 	awarded 	$25,000.00
for their economic loss.
GEC seeks to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal
Rule 	of 	Bankruptcy 	Procedure 	9023, 	which 	makes 	Federal 	Rule 	of
Civil Procedure 59 applicable. 	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). The Decision
and 	Order 	was 	entered 	on 	November 	21, 	2007 	(docket 	#61), 	GEC’s
motion for reconsideration was filed on December 12, 2007 (docket
#63). 	Thus, 	GEC’s 	motion 	to 	alter 	or 	amend 	judgment 	was 	clearly
timely. 	Thus, 	the 	debtors’ 	opposition 	to 	GEC’s 	motion 	for
reconsideration, 	on 	the 	basis 	that 	it 	was 	untimely, 	is 	denied
(docket #65).
In 	seeking 	reconsideration 	under 	Federal 	Rule 	of 	Civil
Procedure 59(e), “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.3d 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 	noted 	four 	grounds 	for 	granting 	a 	motion 	for
reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 	These
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:73 Filed:02/11/09 Entered:02/11/09 10:14:08 Desc: Main
Document Page 7 of 13

8
are “manifest errors of law or fact, newly discovered or previously
unavailable evidence, manifest injustice, and an intervening change
in controlling law.” 	Marie v. Allied Home Mortgage Corp., 402 F.3d
at 7 n. 2 (citing 11 C. Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure
§ 2810.1 (2d ed.1995)).
The 	first 	issue 	is 	wether 	the 	debtors 	were 	precluded 	from
presenting 	evidence regarding damages because they were not plead
in the complaint. As per Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7008,
when a claim for relief is made, it shall contain: 	(1) the basis
for 	jurisdiction, 	(2) 	“a 	short 	and 	plain 	statement 	of 	the 	claim
showing 	that 	the 	pleader 	is 	entitled 	to 	relief” 	and 	(3) 	a 	demand
for judgment for the relief the plaintiff seeks. 	Fed. R. Bankr. P.
7008(a). If, on the other hand, the debtors were asking for special
damages, then as per Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7009, the
debtors should have plead them specifically.
This 	argument 	was 	already 	discussed 	by 	the 	Court 	in 	the
previous 	Decision 	and 	Order 	(docket 	#61). 	The 	Court 	stated 	that
“economic loss is one of the special damages that was specifically
plead 	in 	the 	complaint” 	(docket 	#61). 	A 	simple 	reading 	of 	the
complaint 	in 	Docket 	#1, 	¶ 	12, 	indicates 	that 	the 	debtors
specifically stated that they could not use the truck for trade-in
value. 	Thus, 	the 	Court 	again 	concludes 	that 	the 	debtors 	did
specifically claim economic loss due to GEC’s lien on their truck.
GEC’s request to strike from the record the evidence presented by
the debtors regarding economic loss will be denied.
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:73 Filed:02/11/09 Entered:02/11/09 10:14:08 Desc: Main
Document Page 8 of 13

9
Gec 	also 	argues 	that 	the 	debtors 	could 	not 	present 	evidence
regarding 	their 	economic 	loss 	at 	the 	evidentiary 	hearing 	because
they filed a motion to amend the pleadings, which was denied by the
Court. 	Before 	any 	evidence 	was 	presented 	at 	the 	evidentiary
hearing, 	the 	parties 	had 	the 	opportunity 	to 	discuss 	their
respective 	positions 	regarding 	the 	motion 	to 	amend 	the 	pleadings
filed by the debtors. The debtors argued that they wanted to amend
the 	complaint 	to 	include 	the 	allegation 	of 	the 	truck’s 	value 	at
that 	time 	compared 	to 	its 	present value, because the 	truck
depreciated in the two years after the complaint was filed.
The Court denied the debtors’ motion because it was filed too
late 	and 	because 	there 	was 	no 	good 	reason 	to 	admit 	it 	at 	that
stage of the proceedings, without going into discovery. Yet, the
Court further held, that the trial was going to continue because
the 	debtors 	did 	not 	need 	a 	supplemental 	pleading 	to 	allege 	the
depreciation value or the damages that occurred during that time.
It stated that the complaint was broad enough to include that type
of damages and thus, the debtors could present the evidence.
The 	Court 	concludes 	that 	the 	debtors 	specifically 	claimed
economic 	loss 	due 	to 	GEC’s 	lien 	on 	their 	truck 	because 	it 	was
specifically 	plead 	in 	the 	complaint. 	Thus, 	the 	debtors 	could
present evidence as to their economic loss and the Court will deny
GEC’s request to reconsider on this basis.
GEC argues that the facts used by the Court to determine the
amount 	awarded 	were 	not 	specifically 	plead 	in 	the 	complaint.
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:73 Filed:02/11/09 Entered:02/11/09 10:14:08 Desc: Main
Document Page 9 of 13

10
However, the Court concludes that the complaint does not have to
include evidence to support the amount of damages. The purpose of
a hearing on damages is for the Court to be able to determine the
value of the damages suffered, supported by the evidence presented
by 	the 	parties. 	Federal 	Rule 	of 	Evidence 	701, 	titled 	Opinion
Testimony by Lay Witness, supports the admission of lay testimony
if the witness is not testifying as an expert. It provides:
The witness’ testimony in the form of opinions or
inferences 	is 	limited 	to 	those 	opinions 	or
inferences which are: (a) rationally based on the
perception of the witness, (b) helpful to a clear
understanding 	of 	the 	witness’ 	testimony 	or 	the
determination 	of 	a 	fact 	in 	issue, 	and 	(c) 	not
based 	on 	scientific, 	technical 	or 	other
specialized 	knowledge 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	Rule
702.
Fed. R. Evid. 701.
This rule does not address the weight given to evidence. At
the evidentiary hearing, Mr. De Jesus testified, as a lay witness,
that he had been in the trucking industry for over forty years. He
testified 	that 	he 	had 	a 	potential 	buyer 	that 	was 	willing 	to 	pay
$70,000.00 in the year 2004 (Transcript page 53 line 24 and page
82 	line 	25), 	but 	that 	the 	truck 	had 	depreciated 	and 	he 	believed
that 	it 	was 	worth 	$45,000.00 	at 	the 	time 	of 	the 	hearing
(Transcript page 61 lines 13-14). The defendants did not rebut any
of the evidence presented by the debtors. No witnesses testified
nor 	were 	documents 	presented 	that 	contradicted 	any 	of 	the
allegations 	set 	forth 	by 	the 	debtors 	regarding 	the 	value 	of 	the
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:73 Filed:02/11/09 Entered:02/11/09 10:14:08 Desc: Main
Document Page 10 of 13

11
truck or its depreciation.
The 	Court 	gave 	credibility 	to 	the 	debtors’ 	testimony 	and
concludes 	that 	the 	values 	used 	by 	the 	Court 	to 	determine 	the
amount 	awarded 	to 	the 	debtors 	was 	supported 	by 	the 	evidence
presented 	at 	the 	evidentiary 	hearing. 	Thus, 	the 	Court 	will 	not
reconsider the amount awarded.
GEC asserts that it had no opportunity for discovery nor the
opportunity 	to 	analyze 	the 	value 	of 	the 	debtors’s 	truck 	to
determine 	depreciation. 	At 	the 	evidentiary 	hearing, 	GEC 	argued
that 	it 	filed 	a 	subpoena 	for 	the 	debtors 	to 	attend 	a 	deposition
but, the debtors did not appear. GEC also served interrogatories,
which the debtors failed to answer. GEC also requested a meeting
with 	the 	debtors 	to 	attempt 	to 	settle 	the 	case 	but, 	the 	debtors
would not agree to it. On the other hand, the debtors argue that
they 	never 	answered 	the 	interrogatories 	because 	they 	forgot 	and
because 	GEC 	never 	reminded 	them, 	and 	that 	they 	objected 	to 	the
subpoena 	because 	they 	argued 	that 	GEC 	wanted 	to 	start 	discovery
after the bar date set by the Court for discovery.
If the debtors failed to comply with discovery, GEC had tools
available to it, to seek the debtors compliance. Federal Rule of
Bankruptcy Procedure 7037, titled “Failure to Make Disclosures or
to Cooperate in Discovery: Sanction,” was available to GEC to have
the 	debtors 	comply 	with 	the 	discovery 	or 	to 	seek 	sanctions 	from
the 	Court 	and 	to 	obtain 	an 	order 	for 	the 	debtors 	to 	comply 	but,
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:73 Filed:02/11/09 Entered:02/11/09 10:14:08 Desc: Main
Document Page 11 of 13

12
they 	failed 	to 	use 	it. 	GEC 	failed 	to 	raise 	the 	issue 	prior 	to
seeking reconsideration of the Court’s order assessing damages.
In 	the 	present 	case, 	both 	parties 	had 	the 	opportunity 	to
conduct 	discovery 	and 	both 	were 	qualified 	to 	testify 	as 	to 	the
truck’s 	value 	and 	the 	truck’s 	depreciation, 	as 	of 	the 	date 	the
petition was filed, and as to the present value. The debtors were
qualified 	because 	they 	purchased 	the 	truck 	and 	have 	been 	in 	the
trucking 	industry 	for 	forty 	years 	and 	GEC 	because 	it 	sold 	the
truck to the debtors, and it is in the business of selling trucks
and leasing them.
At the evidentiary hearing, the debtors offered testimony as
to the value of the truck and as to the depreciation. No rebuttal
evidence 	was 	presented 	by 	GEC 	and 	no 	witnesses 	offered 	their
testimony. 	Thus, 	the 	Court 	concludes 	that 	GEC 	did 	have 	the
opportunity for discovery, and that it did have an opportunity to
bring 	a 	witness 	to 	rebut 	although 	it 	did 	not 	present 	any. 	Thus,
the 	Court 	will 	also 	deny 	the 	reconsideration 	based 	on 	this
argument.
The debtors’ testimony confirmed that he had purchased a new
truck eleven days prior to the filing of the adversary complaint.
Thus, GEC argues that the debtors were not precluded from buying
another 	truck 	because 	of 	GEC’s 	lien. 	This 	argument 	was 	already
discussed 	in 	the 	Decision 	and 	Order 	(Docket 	#61). 	The 	Court
concluded 	that 	the 	debtors 	suffered 	economic 	loss 	due 	to 	GEC’s
refusal 	to 	eliminate 	the 	lien 	from 	the 	title 	of 	the 	truck. 	The
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:73 Filed:02/11/09 Entered:02/11/09 10:14:08 Desc: Main
Document Page 12 of 13

13
Court 	also 	concluded 	that 	the 	debtors 	mitigated 	the 	damages 	by
buying another truck so De Jesus could go back to work.
IV. CONCLUSION
The First Circuit Court in Marie, supra, noted four grounds
for 	granting 	a 	motion 	for 	reconsideration 	under 	Federal 	Rule 	of
Civil Procedure 59(e). 	These are “manifest errors of law or fact,
newly 	discovered 	or 	previously 	unavailable 	evidence, 	manifest
injustice, and an intervening change in controlling law.” Marie v.
Allied 	Home 	Mortgage 	Corp., 	402 	F.3d 	1, 	7 	n. 	2 	(1st 	Cir.
2005)(quoting Pomerleau v. W. Springfield Pub. Sch., 362 F.3d 143,
146 n. 2 (1st Cir. 2004)). The Court concludes that GEC has failed
to prove a manifest error of law or fact, nor contended that the
other grounds apply. The Court concludes that the debtors proved
that they suffered economic loss in the amount of $25,000.00, as
calculated by the Court in its previous Decision and Order. Thus,
the Court will not reconsider its previous Decision and Order.
ORDER
WHEREFORE it is ORDERED that the Motion for reconsideration
filed by GEC shall be, and it hereby is, DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 11th day of February 2009.
/s Gerardo A. Carlo-Altieri
_____________________________
GERARDO A. CARLO-ALTIERI
Chief, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:73 Filed:02/11/09 Entered:02/11/09 10:14:08 Desc: Main
Document Page 13 of 13