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
OPINION AND ORDER
This proceeding is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration in
Relation to Additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [Dkt. No. 131] and the Plaintiff's
Opposition to the Defendant’s Motion [Dkt. No. 142]. In essence, the Defendant requests that the
Court reconsider its findings of facts and conclusions of law entered on March 12, 2012 [Dkt. No.
121], under Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7052 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52.
These findings of fact 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 judgment, collection of monies, and injunctive relief under 28
Case:10-00150-BKT Doc#:156 Filed:06/11/12 Entered:06/11/12 13:09:26 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
U.S.C. § 2201. For the reasons set forth below, the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration in
Relation to Additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law is hereby denied.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 52(b) permits “the correction of any manifest errors of law or fact that are discovered,
upon reconsideration, by the trial court.” 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 (1st ed. 2001).
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,” 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
In the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration in Relation to Additional Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, the Defendant did not demonstrate the existence of manifest errors of law or
Case:10-00150-BKT Doc#:156 Filed:06/11/12 Entered:06/11/12 13:09:26 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
fact in this Court’s original findings. Also, the Defendant did not present newly discovered evidence.
Most of the proposed changes fall outside the scope of the trial. The trial was limited to
determining whether the Plaintiff validly terminated its contract with the Defendant. Therefore, the
trial was limited to the issue of liability. All of the Defendant’s proposed conclusions of law and
most of the Defendant’s proposed additional findings of fact do not pertain to the procedure that was
utilized by the Plaintiff to terminate the contract. The proposed additional fact (Dkt. No. 131, page 5,
letter - l) is the only proposed fact that pertains to the termination procedure, but this proposed fact is
actually a conclusion of law - a conclusion of law that was already adopted by this Court in its March
12, 2012 Opinion and Order.
Rule 52(b) is not intended to allow litigants to prosper by recounting arguments that were
previously heard and rejected by the court. All of the proposed additions were previously heard at
trial, and none of the Defendant’s proposed amendments demonstrate that the original findings of
facts and conclusions of law contain a manifest error.
Because the Defendant has failed to establish a manifest error - and because the proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law were previously heard at trial - this Court finds that the
Defendant 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 Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration in Relation
to Additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 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#:156 Filed:06/11/12 Entered:06/11/12 13:09:26 Desc: Main
Document Page 3 of 3