In re: Roberto Sebelen Medina and Betsie Marie Corujo Martinez
Opinion
THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 2
4 IN RE: CASE NO. 14-06368 5 Chapter 11 BETSIE MARIE CORUJO MARTINEZ 7
8 Debtor(s) FILED & ENTERED ON 05/13/2015 9
10 OPINION & ORDER 11 12 Before the court is Debtors' Motion of Reconsideration of Order [Dkt. No. 117] requesting 13 that the court reconsider the Order dated December 18, 20141 [Dkt. No. 108], Debtors' Supplement 14 to their Motion [Dkt. No. 118], and Banco Popular de Puerto Rico's (hereinafter "BPPR") Opposition 15 16 [Dkt. No. 130]. For the reasons stated herein, Debtors' motion is hereby DENIED. 17 “A ‘motion to reconsider’ is not among the motions recognized by the Federal Rules of Civil 18 Procedure.” Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1991). The federal courts 19 20 have consistently stated that a motion so denominated which challenges the prior judgment on the 21 merits will be treated as either a motion ‘to alter or amend’ under the Federal Rules of Civil 22 Procedure, Rule 59 or a motion for ‘relief from judgment’ under Rule 60. Equity Security Holders' 23 24 Committee v. Wedgestone Financial, 152 B.R. 786, 788 (Bkrtcy.D.Mass.1993). Which rule applies 25 depends essentially on the time a motion is served. Although the Debtors fail to indicate under
which Rule they are seeking reconsideration, the timing of their motion falls within the purview of Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), which is made applicable to bankruptcy cases by the Federal Rules of
1 Said Order determined that the language contained in the mortgage deeds provides a lien over 1 Bankruptcy Procedure, Rule 9024. The First Circuit has recognized that “[a] motion for 2 reconsideration does not provide a vehicle for a party to undo its own procedural failures and it 3 certainly does not allow a party to introduce new evidence or advance new arguments that could or 4 5 should have been presented to the district court prior to judgment.” Marks 2–Zet–Ernst Marks 6 GMBH & Co. KG v. Presstek, Inc., 455 F.3d 7, 15–16 (1st Cir.2006). Under a Rule 60(b) motion for 7 reconsideration, a court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order or proceeding only if the 8 9 moving party can establish within a reasonable time under extraordinary circumstances: (1) mistake, 10 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void 11 judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the 12 13 judgment. Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1387 (9th Cir.1985); Twentieth Century–Fox Film 14 Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir.1981) (internal citations omitted) (“[r]elief under 15 Rule 60(b)(6) must be requested within a reasonable time, and is available only under extraordinary 16 17 circumstances.”). 18 After considering the arguments raised by both parties, this Court finds that Debtors' motion 19 neither provides the court with genuine reasons why it should revisit the prior Order, nor compelling 20 21 facts or law in support of reversing the prior decision. Debtors' Motion attempts to rehash the same 22 arguments that were already considered and found lacking by this Court. The arguments are two- 23 fold: (1) that BPPR does not possess a valid lien over the Debtors’ rents because BPPR did not 24 25 properly declare an event of default, and none existed, and (2) that BPPR lacks standing to request
the cash collateral since they refuse to show Debtors the original promissory notes and endorsements. The court considered these exact arguments prior to rendering its December 18, 2014 Order. More importantly, neither of these arguments fall within the purview of a Rule 60(b) motion. Because the Debtors have failed to establish the legal requirements for reconsideration, this 1 || Court finds that they are not entitled to reconsideration under the Federal Rules of Bankruptc Procedure, Rule 9024.
4 WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Debtor's motion be, and it hereby is, DENIED. ° SO ORDERED San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 13th day of May, 2015.
° . OD ea Vie 10 Brian K. Tester 11 U.S. Bankruptcy Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In re: Roberto Sebelen Medina and Betsie Marie Corujo Martinez (In re: Roberto Sebelen Medina and Betsie Marie Corujo Martinez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.