Rio Valley Motors Company L.L.C.

1 The Motion recites that a supporting memorandum would be
filed within fourteen days of the filing of the Motion. 	Id. at
13. 	No memorandum was subsequently filed, and in any event the
13-page Motion is replete with factual allegations and citations
to legal authorities, such that the Court concludes that the
Motion was intended to be counsel’s submission.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
In re:
RIO VALLEY MOTORS COMPANY, LLC
Debtor. 	No. 11-06-11866 SS
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER
ORDER DENYING DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION’S APPLICATION
TO EMPLOY WILLIAM L. NEEDLER AS CHAPTER 11 COUNSEL
This matter is before the Court on Attorney William L.
Needler’s Motion to Reconsider, Vacate, Amend and Modify (the
“Motion”)(doc 220) the August 29, 2007 order denying Debtor-in-
Possession’s Application to Employ William L. Needler as Chapter
11 Counsel (“Employment Order”)(doc 216). 	This is a core
proceeding. 	28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). 	The Court has reviewed
the Motion and consulted the applicable authorities and finds
that the Motion is not well taken and will be denied.
The Motion was timely filed on the first business day
following the tenth day after entry of the Employment Order. 1
Therefore, it will be treated as a motion under Rule 59(e). 	See
Lopez v. Long (In re Long), 255 B.R. 241, 244 (10 th Cir. B.A.P.
2000). 	The grounds that warrant a motion to reconsider include
1) an intervening change in the law, 2) new evidence previously
unavailable, and 3) the need to correct clear error or prevent
Case 06-11866-s11 Doc 242 Filed 12/03/07 Entered 12/03/07 13:18:50 Page 1 of 3

Page -2-
manifest injustice. 	Servants of the Paraclete v. Doe, 204 F.3d
1005, 1012 (10 th Cir. 2000). 	“[A] motion to reconsider is
appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a
party’s position, or the controlling law.” 	Id. 	Motions for
reconsideration should not revisit issues already argued or
advance arguments that could have been raised earlier. 	Id.
The Motion does not claim an intervening change in the law,
nor does it allege there is newly discovered evidence. 	Rather,
it consists of a lengthy reiteration of the history of the case
and much reargument of issues already addressed by the Court in
the Order. 	The Court will address one new legal theory advanced
in the Motion, however. 	That is, Mr. Needler argues that his
employment award should be entered nunc pro tunc, citing numerous
cases. 	It is true that in some jurisdictions nunc pro tunc
approval of professionals has been allowed. 	As a general rule,
however, such employment is allowed only in exceptional
circumstances. 	See Land v. First Nat’l Bank of Alamosa (In re
Land), 943 F.2d 1265, 1267-68 (10 th Cir. 1991); In re Ewing, 54
B.R. 952, 954-55 (D. Colo. 1985). 	See also F/S Airlease II, Inc.
v. Simon (In re F/S Airlease II, Inc.), 844 F.2d 99, 105 (3 rd
Cir. 1988). 	However, Mr. Needler does not set forth any
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that would allow nunc
pro tunc approval in this case. 	Rather, he cites to the record
and comments on how successful this bankruptcy case has been.
Case 06-11866-s11 Doc 242 Filed 12/03/07 Entered 12/03/07 13:18:50 Page 2 of 3

Page -3-
This Court agrees with the F/S Airlease II Court on this point:
“[T]he fact that the applicant’s services were [at least
somewhat] beneficial to the debtor’s estate is immaterial to this
court’s decision regarding nunc pro tunc approval.” 	Id. at 108
(Citation and quotation omitted.) 	An unavoidable consequence of
the statutory requirement of prior approval is some unjust
enrichment. 	Id.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the
Motion to Reconsider is not well taken. 	An Order will be entered
denying the Motion.
Honorable James S. Starzynski
United States Bankruptcy Judge
copies to:
Walter L Reardon, Jr
3733 Eubank Blvd NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111-3536
William L Needler
555 Skokie Blvd #500
Northbrook, IL 60062
Duane Geck
Severson & Werson
One Embarcadero Ctr
San Francisco, CA 94111
James Jurgens
100 La Salle Cir Ste A
Santa Fe, NM 87505-6976
Alice Nystel Page
PO Box 608
Albuquerque, NM 87103-0608
Case 06-11866-s11 Doc 242 Filed 12/03/07 Entered 12/03/07 13:18:50 Page 3 of 3