In re: Jose M. Melero Munoz and Maria V. Bonnin Orozco

• Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico
• Decided: March 5, 2020
• Docket: 18-01951
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 2 3 IN RE: CASE NO. 18-01951-BKT11 4 5 JOSE M. MELERO MUNOZ, Chapter 11 6 MARIA V. BONNIN OROZCO 7 FILED & ENTERED ON 03/05/2020 8 Debtor(s) 9 10 OPINION AND ORDER 11 Before the court is Claimant Puerto Rico Treasury Department’s (hereinafter “Claimant”) 12 Motion for Reconsideration of Orders at Dockets No. 210 and 211[Dkt. No. 215], along with Jose 13 14 M. Melero Munoz and Maria V. Bonnin Orozco’s (“Debtors”) Opposition to Treasury 15 Department’s Motion for Reconsideration[Dkt. No. 217].Claimant’s reconsideration stems from 16 an Order entered by the court on January 16, 2020, granting Debtors’ objection to claim number 17 10-3 [Dkt. No. 205]. Claimant failed to file a response to the Debtors’ objection despite being 18 allowed sufficient time to do so. 19 20 Claimants motion for reconsideration sets forth Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), made applicable to 21 bankruptcy cases through Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023, as its legal basis under which the court could 22 provide relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) authorizes the filing of a motion moving the court to alter or 23 amend a judgment within twenty-eight (28)days1of entry of said judgment. Because “Rule 59(e) 24 25 does not state the grounds on which relief may be granted… courts have considerable discretion 1Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023 reduces the twenty-eight (28) day requirement to fourteen (14) days. 1 1 in deciding whether to grant or deny a motion under the rule.” In re Nieves Guzman, 567 B.R. 854, 2 863 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2017) (quoting, ACA Fin. Guar. Corp. v. Advest, Inc., 512 F.3d 46, 55 (1st 3 Cir. 2008)) (internal quotations omitted). 4 The First Circuit has generally noted four grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration 5 6 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59: “manifest errors of law or fact, newly discovered or previously 7 unavailable evidence, manifest injustice, and an intervening change in controlling law.” Marie v. 8 Allied Home Mortgage Corp., 402 F.3rd 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2005) (citing, 11 C. Wright et al., Federal 9 Practice & Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995)). “It is well settled in the First Circuit that to meet 10 the threshold requirements of Rule 59(e), the motion must demonstrate the ‘reason why the court 11 12 should reconsider its prior decision….’ In re Nieves Guzman, 567 B.R. at 863 (quoting, In re 13 Arroyo, 544 B.R. 751, 756 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2015)). The moving party is generally held as having 14 to produce to the court a “‘clear conviction of error’ or belief that the final judgment was ‘dead 15 wrong.’” Steven S. Gensler, 2 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary, Rule 59, 16 17 Westlaw (February 2017). 18 “A motion for reconsideration is not the venue to undo procedural snafus or permit a party 19 to advance arguments it should have developed prior to judgment, nor is it a mechanism to 20 regurgitate old arguments previously considered and rejected.” In re Nieves Guzman, 567 B.R. at 21 863 (quoting,Biltcliffe v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 772 F.3d 925, 930 (1st Cir. 2014) (citations omitted) 22 23 (internal quotations omitted). Finally, "[i]n practice, [R]ule 59(e) motions are generally denied 24 because of the narrow purpose for which they are intended." Rosado v. Banco Popular de P.R., 25 561 B.R. 598, 608 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2017) (quoting,BAC Home Loans Servicing LP v. Grassi, No. EP 11-010, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 4362 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. Nov. 21, 2011)). Federal courts “have 2 1 || consistently stated that a motion for reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remed 2 that must be used sparingly because of interest in finality and conservation of scarce judicia resources." Id. at 607.

5 Upon review of Claimant’s arguments, the court determines that the evaluation of th 6 || evidence demonstrates that no error was committed. Claimant fails to establish any of the require 7 factors for reconsideration under Rule 59 discussed above. After considering Claimant’ ° motion, the court finds that said motion neither provides the court with genuine reasons why i 9 should revisit the prior Order, nor compelling facts in support of reversing the prior decision]

11 || Granting a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59 is generally viewed with disfavor by th 12 || courts, and the procedurally late recitation of facts proffered by the Claimant does not provide an *3 reason to justify relief from this court’s Order. As such the Claimant’s Motion for Reconsideratio of Orders at Dockets No, 210 and 211 [Dkt. No. 215], is DENIED.

16 SO ORDERED 17 In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 5" day of March 2020. 18 . 19 ea Vie 20 Brian K. Tester U.S. Bankruptcy Judge 22 23 24 25