1 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 2 IN RE: : 3 : CASE NO. 11-04414 (ESL) SWISS CHALET, INC. : 4 : Debtor : CHAPTER 11 5 ____________________________________: 6 OPINION AND ORDER 7 This case is before the court upon the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment under [Fed. R. 8 Bankr. P.] 9023 and for Rehearing and/or for Reconsideration under [Fed. R. Bankr. P.] 9024 filed 9 on April 3, 2013 (the “Motion to Reconsider”, Docket No. 524) by creditor by McP&G, Inc. d/b/a 10 Terranova Realty Group (“Terranova”). Terranova seeks reconsideration of the Order entered on 11 April 3, 2013 (Docket No. 523), which reads as follows: 12 At the hearing held on February 4, 2013 to consider the request for administrative expenses filed by [Terranova], the court granted Terranova and the Debtor ten (10) days 13 to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court stated that an evidentiary hearing would be scheduled after the proposed findings and conclusions 14 were filed. See Docket No. 500. Because the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were not filed, on March 7, 2013, the court entered an order for Terranova to 15 show cause why its request for administrative expenses should not be denied for failure to prosecute. See Docket No. 512. 16 On March 15, 2013, Terranova filed its Answer to Order to Show Cause (Docket No. 17 520) stating “its failure to comply with this court’s order of filing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law was solely due to a misplacement of the initial draft sent by 18 Debtor’s counsel to the undersigned” and that “within the next five (5) days the parties will proceed to file the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as ordered by 19 this court; all within the fourteen day period granted by this Court to show cause at Docket No. 512” (Docket No. 520, pp. 1-2, ¶¶ 2-3). The extension requested by 20 Terranova elapsed on Wednesday, March 20, 2013. No additional extension of time was filed, and neither were the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law or any 21 further motion related to Terranova’s administrative expenses whatsoever. 22 Thus, as forewarned in Docket No. 512, Terranova’s request for administrative expenses is hereby denied. 23 24 Because Terranova filed its Motion to Reconsider within the 14-days provided in Fed. R. 25 Civ. P. 9023, it will be considered under the scope of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). See In re Lozada Rivera, 26 470 B.R. 109, 112-113 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2012); Pérez-Pérez v. Popular Leasing Rental, Inc., 993 F.2d 27 281, 284 (1st Cir. 1993). 28 Reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy, which is used 1 || sparingly and only when the need for justice outweighs the interests set forth by a final judgment’. 2 || See Garcia Matos v. Oliveras Rivera (In re Garcia Matos), 478 B.R. 506, 516 (B.A.P. 1* Cir. 2012); 3 || Metal Finishing Co. v. BarclaysAmerican/Commercial, Inc., 899 F.2d 119, 123 (1* Cir. 1990). 4 }j It is directed at allowing a court to correct its own errors. White v.New Hampshire Dep't of 5 || Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 450 (1982). “To meet the threshold requirements of a successful 6 || [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 59(e) motion, [it] ‘must demonstrate the reason why the court should reconsider 7 || its prior decision and must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court 8 |] to reverse its earlier decision.’” Schwartz v. Schwartz (In re Schwartz), 409 B.R. 240, 250 (B.A.P. 9 || 1* Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). The moving party cannot use a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to 10 || cure its procedural defects or to offer new evidence or raise arguments that could and should have 11 || been presented originally to the court. Id. at 250; Alberti v. Univ. of P.R., 869 F. Supp. 2d 231, 233 12 || (D.P.R. 2012); Iverson v, City of Boston, 452 F.3d 94, 103 (1* Cir. 2006); Lopez Jimenez v. Pabon 13 || Rodriguez (In re Pabon Rodriguez), 233 B.R. 212, 219 (Bankr. D.P.R. 1999); Aybar v. Crispin- 14 || Reyes, 118 F. 3d 10, 16 (1* Cir. 1997) (explaining that Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) “does not provide a 15 || vehicle for a party to undo its own procedural failures [or] allow a party [to] advance arguments that 16 || could and should have been presented to the [trial] court prior to judgment”). In order to be 17 || successful ona Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, the moving party must establish a manifest error of law 18 || or fact or must present newly discovered evidence. In re Schwartz, 409 B.R. at 250; Kansky v. 19 || Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of New Eng., 492 F.3d 54, 60 (1* Cir. 2007); Landrau-Romero v. BPPR, 20 || 212 F.3d 607, 612 (1* Cir. 2000). Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions cannot be used to re-litigate matters 21 || already litigated and decided by the court. Soto-Padro v. Public Bldgs. Auth., 675 F.3d 1,9 (1* Cir. 22 || 2012); Hernandez v. Sealand Servs., 230 F. Supp. 2d 258, 259 (D.P.R. 2002); Standard Quimica de 23 || Venezuela v. Central Hispano International, Inc., 189 F.R.D.202, n.4 (D.P.R. 1999). Case law in 24 || the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit “generally offer three grounds for a valid Rule 59(e) 25 || motion: an ‘intervening change’ in the controlling law, a clear legal error, or newly-discovered 26 2700 0 ' Contested matters in bankruptcy proceedings are governed by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014. Subsection (c) of 28 || that rule expressly makes Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7054 (judgments) applicable to contested matters like the instant one.
1 || evidence.” Soto-Padré, 675 F.3d at 9 (citations omitted). Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions are 2 || generally denied because of the narrow purpose for which they are intended. Id. at 250; Inre Pabon 3 || Rodriguez, 233 B.R. at 219; 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and 4 || Procedure § 2810.1 (2™ ed. 2012). The trial court has considerable discretion and broad authority 5 || in deciding whether granting or denying a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. Ruiz Rivera v. Pfizer 6 || Pharms., LLC, 521 F.3d 76, 81-82 (1* Cir. 2008); Venegas-Hernandez v. Sonolux Records, 370 F.3d 7 || 183, 190 (1* Cir. 2004).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 2 IN RE: : 3 : CASE NO. 11-04414 (ESL) SWISS CHALET, INC. : 4 : Debtor : CHAPTER 11 5 ____________________________________: 6 OPINION AND ORDER 7 This case is before the court upon the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment under [Fed. R. 8 Bankr. P.] 9023 and for Rehearing and/or for Reconsideration under [Fed. R. Bankr. P.] 9024 filed 9 on April 3, 2013 (the “Motion to Reconsider”, Docket No. 524) by creditor by McP&G, Inc. d/b/a 10 Terranova Realty Group (“Terranova”). Terranova seeks reconsideration of the Order entered on 11 April 3, 2013 (Docket No. 523), which reads as follows: 12 At the hearing held on February 4, 2013 to consider the request for administrative expenses filed by [Terranova], the court granted Terranova and the Debtor ten (10) days 13 to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court stated that an evidentiary hearing would be scheduled after the proposed findings and conclusions 14 were filed. See Docket No. 500. Because the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were not filed, on March 7, 2013, the court entered an order for Terranova to 15 show cause why its request for administrative expenses should not be denied for failure to prosecute. See Docket No. 512. 16 On March 15, 2013, Terranova filed its Answer to Order to Show Cause (Docket No. 17 520) stating “its failure to comply with this court’s order of filing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law was solely due to a misplacement of the initial draft sent by 18 Debtor’s counsel to the undersigned” and that “within the next five (5) days the parties will proceed to file the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as ordered by 19 this court; all within the fourteen day period granted by this Court to show cause at Docket No. 512” (Docket No. 520, pp. 1-2, ¶¶ 2-3). The extension requested by 20 Terranova elapsed on Wednesday, March 20, 2013. No additional extension of time was filed, and neither were the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law or any 21 further motion related to Terranova’s administrative expenses whatsoever. 22 Thus, as forewarned in Docket No. 512, Terranova’s request for administrative expenses is hereby denied. 23 24 Because Terranova filed its Motion to Reconsider within the 14-days provided in Fed. R. 25 Civ. P. 9023, it will be considered under the scope of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). See In re Lozada Rivera, 26 470 B.R. 109, 112-113 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2012); Pérez-Pérez v. Popular Leasing Rental, Inc., 993 F.2d 27 281, 284 (1st Cir. 1993). 28 Reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy, which is used 1 || sparingly and only when the need for justice outweighs the interests set forth by a final judgment’. 2 || See Garcia Matos v. Oliveras Rivera (In re Garcia Matos), 478 B.R. 506, 516 (B.A.P. 1* Cir. 2012); 3 || Metal Finishing Co. v. BarclaysAmerican/Commercial, Inc., 899 F.2d 119, 123 (1* Cir. 1990). 4 }j It is directed at allowing a court to correct its own errors. White v.New Hampshire Dep't of 5 || Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 450 (1982). “To meet the threshold requirements of a successful 6 || [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 59(e) motion, [it] ‘must demonstrate the reason why the court should reconsider 7 || its prior decision and must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court 8 |] to reverse its earlier decision.’” Schwartz v. Schwartz (In re Schwartz), 409 B.R. 240, 250 (B.A.P. 9 || 1* Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). The moving party cannot use a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to 10 || cure its procedural defects or to offer new evidence or raise arguments that could and should have 11 || been presented originally to the court. Id. at 250; Alberti v. Univ. of P.R., 869 F. Supp. 2d 231, 233 12 || (D.P.R. 2012); Iverson v, City of Boston, 452 F.3d 94, 103 (1* Cir. 2006); Lopez Jimenez v. Pabon 13 || Rodriguez (In re Pabon Rodriguez), 233 B.R. 212, 219 (Bankr. D.P.R. 1999); Aybar v. Crispin- 14 || Reyes, 118 F. 3d 10, 16 (1* Cir. 1997) (explaining that Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) “does not provide a 15 || vehicle for a party to undo its own procedural failures [or] allow a party [to] advance arguments that 16 || could and should have been presented to the [trial] court prior to judgment”). In order to be 17 || successful ona Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, the moving party must establish a manifest error of law 18 || or fact or must present newly discovered evidence. In re Schwartz, 409 B.R. at 250; Kansky v. 19 || Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of New Eng., 492 F.3d 54, 60 (1* Cir. 2007); Landrau-Romero v. BPPR, 20 || 212 F.3d 607, 612 (1* Cir. 2000). Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions cannot be used to re-litigate matters 21 || already litigated and decided by the court. Soto-Padro v. Public Bldgs. Auth., 675 F.3d 1,9 (1* Cir. 22 || 2012); Hernandez v. Sealand Servs., 230 F. Supp. 2d 258, 259 (D.P.R. 2002); Standard Quimica de 23 || Venezuela v. Central Hispano International, Inc., 189 F.R.D.202, n.4 (D.P.R. 1999). Case law in 24 || the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit “generally offer three grounds for a valid Rule 59(e) 25 || motion: an ‘intervening change’ in the controlling law, a clear legal error, or newly-discovered 26 2700 0 ' Contested matters in bankruptcy proceedings are governed by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014. Subsection (c) of 28 || that rule expressly makes Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7054 (judgments) applicable to contested matters like the instant one.
1 || evidence.” Soto-Padré, 675 F.3d at 9 (citations omitted). Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions are 2 || generally denied because of the narrow purpose for which they are intended. Id. at 250; Inre Pabon 3 || Rodriguez, 233 B.R. at 219; 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and 4 || Procedure § 2810.1 (2™ ed. 2012). The trial court has considerable discretion and broad authority 5 || in deciding whether granting or denying a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. Ruiz Rivera v. Pfizer 6 || Pharms., LLC, 521 F.3d 76, 81-82 (1* Cir. 2008); Venegas-Hernandez v. Sonolux Records, 370 F.3d 7 || 183, 190 (1* Cir. 2004). 8 In its Motion to Reconsider, Terrranova does not allege an intervening change of law, 9 || newly-discovered evidence or manifest error of law. Instead, it reiterates, as it did in its previous 10 || Answer to Order to Show Cause (Docket No. 520), that the reasons for non-compliance with this 11 || court’s orders to file the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (Docket Nos. 500 and 512) 12 || was due to a misplacement of the initial draft sent by the Debtor’s counsel to its attorney, that on 13 |} March 15, 2013, its attorney sent a draft to the Debtor’s counsel of the proposed findings of fact and 14 || conclusions of law, that it requested 5 days to file the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of 15 || law (Docket No. 520, p. 2, 93), which elapsed on March 20, 2013, and that its second failure to file 16 || the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law was “due to Debtor’s counsel previous 17 |} commitments and the fact that he was outside of Puerto Rico for approximately one week”, which 18 || is “not attributable to Terranova” (Docket No. 524, p.3). Terranova, however, did not timely inform 19 || the court of the foregoing nor did it request an additional extension of time. It opted instead to idly 20 || stand in spite of the prior opportunities this court afforded it in its previous orders. 21 Under the Anglo-American system of representative litigation, each party is deemed bound 22 || by the acts of his lawyer-agent and is considered to have notice of all facts notice of which can be 23 || charged upon the attorney. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633-634 (1962). Furthermore, 24 || in Maples v. Thomas, 132 S. Ct. 912, 922 (2012), the Supreme Court recently explained as follows: 25 Cause for a procedural default exists where “something external to the petitioner, something that cannot fairly be attributed to him[,] ... ‘impeded [his] efforts to comply 26 with the State’s procedural rule.’” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 753 (1991) (quoting Murray v. Carrier, 477 U. S. 478, 488 (1986)). Negligence on the part of a 27 [litigant’s| attorney does not qualify as “cause”. Coleman, 501 U.S. at 753. That is so, we reasoned in Coleman, because the attorney is the [litigant’s] agent, and under 28 “well-settled principles of agency law,” the principal bears the risk of negligent conduct
1 on the part of his agent. Id. at 753-754. See also Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 92 (1990) (“Under our system of representative litigation, ‘each 2 party 1s deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent.” (quoting Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 634 (1962)). Thus, when a [litigant’s] attorney misses a filing 3 deadline, the [litigant] is bound by the oversight and cannot rely on it to establish cause. 4 Coleman, 501 U.S. at 753-754. We do not disturb that general rule.
5 || Puerto Rico has also adopted the same doctrine. See Tenorio Betancourt v. Hospital Dr. Pila, 159 6 || D.P.R. 777, 785 (2003); Diaz v. Superior Court, 93 P.R.R. 78, 86 (1966) (“every litigant who 7 || voluntarily chooses an attorney to represent him in a litigation cannot avoid the consequences of the 8 || acts and omissions of such agent”) (citing Link v. Wabash R. Co., supra). 9 Terranova is the movant of its claim for administrative expenses and as such carries the 10 || burden of prosecution. It failed to do so. The court is not moved by Terranova’s explanations in 11 || light of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the instant contested matter, especially 12 || considering that Terranova failed to comply with the court’s previous orders and opportunities 13 || regarding the filing of the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, nor has it met its burden 14 || under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 15 In view of the foregoing, Terranova’s Motion to Reconsider (Docket No. 524) is hereby 16 |] denied. 17 SO ORDERED. 18 In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 26" day of April, 2013. 19 20
unitéé States Bankruptcy Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
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 26 27 28 5