In re: Manuel R Prats Vega

• Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico
• Decided: June 22, 2010
• Docket: 10-00021
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 2

3 IN RE:

4 MANUEL R PRATS VEGA CASE NO. 09-08785 BKT CHAPTER 11 5 Debtor(s) ADVERSARY NO. 10-00021 6 BRANDA CRUZ

7 Plaintiff 8 MANUEL R PRATS VEGA FILED & ENTERED ON 06/22/2010 9 Defendant(s) 10 OPINION AND ORDER 11 This proceeding is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or 12 Amend Order [Dkt. No. 20] and Defendant’s Opposition [Dkt. No. 23]. For the 13 14 reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend order is hereby 15 DENIED. 16 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION 17 Plaintiff seeks reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy 18 Procedure 9023, which makes Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 applicable to 19 bankruptcy proceedings. This rule states that “[a]ny motion to alter or amend a 20 judgment must be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.”Fed. R. 21 Civ. P. 59(e). In seeking reconsideration, “the moving party must either clearly 22 establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence.” 23 Marie v. Allied Home Mortgage Corp., 402 F. 3rd 1, 7 n. 2 (1st Cir. 2005) quoting 24 Pomerleau v. W. Springfield Pub. Sch., 362 F. 3d 143, 146 n. 2 (1st Cir. 2004). 25 In Marie, the First Circuit also cited a leading treatise, noting four grounds

for granting a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 (e). The grounds are “manifest errors of law or fact, newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, manifest injustice, and an intervening change in 1 1 controlling law.” Marie v. Allied Home Mortgage Corp., 402 F 3rd at 7 (citing 1 2 ||c. Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995)). 3 Reconsideration of a judgment under Rule 59 is an extraordinary remedy tha 4 is used sparingly and only when the need for justice outweighs the interests 5 advanced by a final judgment. It is directed at allowing a court to correct it 6 own errors. White v. New Hampshire Dept. of Employment Security, 455 U.S. 445, 7 450 (1982). 8 Contemporary with the motion under Rule 59, Plaintiff filed a motion fo 9 Lo leave to amend the complaint and an amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges that i 11 the Court fails to consider the amended complaint, the Court would depriv 12 plaintiff of her rights and as such would commit a manifest error of law. 13 Unfortunately, Rule 59 cannot be used to bring to the Court’s consideration 14 ||pleading filed after the subject judgment was entered. The Rule is clear that th 15 ||Court should amend its judgment if a manifest error of law was committed or ther 16 |;is newly found evidence. Plaintiff’s motion is defective inasmuch as it alleges 17 |\the manifest error of law by this Court would be by failing to allow and conside 18 her post judgment motion, i.e. the amended complaint. 19 . . . □ Absent a manifest error of law or newly found evidence, the court is not i 20 a position to alter or amend its previous order. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion t 21 alter or amend the order dismissing the captioned adversary proceeding is hereb 22 denied. The case remains dismissed. 23 SO ORDERED. 24 25 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 22 day of June, 2010.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge