Medical Educational and Health Services Inc v. Municipality of Mayaguez, et als.

• Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico
• Decided: June 11, 2012
• Docket: 10-00148
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

4 IN RE: CASE NO. 10-4905 5 Chapter 11

6 MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL AND 7 HEALTH SERVICES INC Adversary No. 10-00148 8 9 Debtor(s) 10

11 MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL AND HEALTH SERVICES INC 12

13 Plaintiff 14 vs.

15 MUNICIPALITY OF MAYAGUEZ, ET 16 ALS. 17 Defendant FILED & ENTERED ON 06/11/2012 18

21 OPINION AND ORDER 22 This proceeding is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration to Amend 23 24 and Make Additional Findings [Dkt. No. 256] and the Plaintiff's Opposition to the Defendants' 25 Motion [Dkt. No. 291]. In essence, the Defendant requests that the Court reconsider its findings of

facts entered on March 12, 2012 [Dkt. No. 249], under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7052 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52. These findings of facts pertain to a complaint filed by Medical Educational and Health Services, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) against the Municipality of Mayaguez, Et 1 Als. (“Defendants”) for among other causes of action - recovery of money/property, injunctive relief 2 and declaratory judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Defendant's Motion for 3 4 Reconsideration to Amend and Make Additional Findings is hereby denied. 5 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 6 Rule 52(b) permits “the correction of any manifest errors of law or fact that are discovered, 7 upon reconsideration, by the trial court.” National Metal Finishing Company v. Barclays American 8 9 Commercial, Inc., 899 F.2d 119, 122 (1st Cir. 1990). Rule 52(b) motions apply only when a party 10 demonstrates a manifest error of law or fact, or in limited situations to present newly discovered 11 evidence. In re Braithwaite, 197 B.R. 834, 835 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1996) (citing, Fontenot v. Mesa 12 13 Petroleum Co., 791 F.2d 1207, 1219 (5th Cir. 1986)). “A motion to amend the Court's findings of 14 fact should be based on a ‘manifest error of law or mistake of fact, and a judgment should not be set 15 aside except for substantial reasons.’” In re Novak, 223 B.R. 363, 371 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1997) 16 17 (citing Ramos v. Boehringer Manheim Corp., 896 F. Supp. 1213, 1214 (S.D.Fla. 1994)). Manifest 18 error is defined as “an error that is obvious and indisputable and that warrants reversal on appeal”. 19 Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law (1st ed. 2001). 20 21 Motions to amend should not be "employed to introduce evidence that was available at trial 22 but was not proffered, to relitigate old issues, to advance new theories, or to secure a rehearing on the 23 merits,” Fontenot v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 791 F.2d 1207, 1219 (5th Cir. 1986). Rule 52(b) was not 24 25 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 Rule 52(b) is not intended to allow litigants to prosper by recounting arguments that were 1 || previously heard and rejected by the court. In this case, none of the Defendant’s propose amendments demonstrate that the original findings contain a manifest error, and all of the propose 4 || additions were previously heard at trial and rejected by this Court. The Defendant does not argue tha ° is presenting newly discovered evidence, and its proposed amendments and additions do no demonstrate a manifest error of law or fact.

8 In addition, the proposed amendments and additions fall outside the scope of the trial. Th > |! scope of this trial was limited to determining whether the contract between the parties was validl terminated. This Court found that the Defendant did not follow the termination procedure that wa

12 clearly established contractually. None of the Defendant's proposed amendments or additions pertai 13 || to the process that the Defendant used to terminate the contract. Therefore, they are not essentia findings for the judgment made by this Court. 16 Because the Defendant has failed to establish a manifest error - and because the propose 17 || additional findings of fact were previously heard at trial and rejected by this Court - the court find that the Defendant is not entitled to reconsideration under F.R.B.P., Rule 7052 or F.R.C.P., Rul 20 }|52(b). at WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration to Amen and Make Additional Findings of Fact shall be, and it hereby is, DENIED. 24 In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 11th day of June, 2012. 25

.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge