Wilfredo Segarra Miranda, Trustee v. Jorge D Carrera Del Moral; Triple-S Management Corp.

Opinion

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

IN RE: CASE NO. 15-009198 BKT

Debtor(s)

WILFREDO SEGARRA MIRANDA, TRUSTEE CHAPTER 7

Plaintiff

v.

JORGE D CARRERA DEL MORAL FILED & ENTERED ON 12/03/2019 Defendants

OPINION & ORDER Before the court is Defendant Triple-S Management Corporation’s (hereinafter “TSM”) Motion for Reconsideration filed on October 17, 2019, [Dkt. No. 77] and Trustee’s Opposition to TSM’s Request of Reconsideration filed on 10/30/2019 [Dkt. No. 78]. For the reasons set forth below the Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration is Denied. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 applies to bankruptcy cases pursuant to Federal Rule Bankruptcy Procedure 9023. Accordingly, if, as in this case, the motion is “filed no later than 14 days after the entry of judgment,” the motion is examined under the severity of Rule 59(e). Id.; Marie v. Allied Home Mortgage Corp., 402 F.3d 1, FN2 (1st Cir. 2005) (“We note that it is very difficult to prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion.”). For a Rule 59 motion to succeed movant “must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence.” Cherena v. Coors Brewing Co., 20 F.Supp.2d 282, 287 (D.P.R. 1998) (quoting Jorge Rivera Surill & Co. v. Falconer Glass Indus.,Inc., 37 F.3d 25, 29 (1st Cir. 1994)). As result, a motion to alte ° or amend judgment will be denied unless the moving party presents controlling jurisprudence tha was overlooked by the court which may reasonably be expected to amend or alter its conclusion|

é Est. of Rivera v. Dr. Susoni Hosp., Inc., 323 F. Supp. 2d 262, 265 (D.P.R. 2004) (citing Shrade

v.CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2nd Cir.1995)). After a thorough review of the motions, the court determines that Defendant’s motio > || neither provides the court with genuine reasons why it should revisit the order denying the Motio *0 for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 72], nor compelling law in support of reversing the prio decision. In their motion to reconsider, the Defendant fails to establish any of the required lega factors discussed above pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Moreover, the court finds the argumen

raised in the Plaintiffs opposition compelling and legally sound. The Defendant has failed t establish the legal requirements for reconsideration under Rule 9023 of the Federal Rules o Bankruptcy Procedure, and therefore, the Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. No. 77] is DENIED. SO ORDERED In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 3“ day of December, 2019. ‘ Pos. TS Ais Brian K. Tester U.S. Bankruptcy Judge -2-