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

• Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico
• Decided: December 3, 2019
• Docket: 18-00043
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

4 IN RE: CASE NO. 15-009198 BKT

5 JORGE D CARRERA DEL MORAL

6 Debtor(s)

7 WILFREDO SEGARRA MIRANDA, 8 TRUSTEE CHAPTER 7

9 Plaintiff

10 v.

11 JORGE D CARRERA DEL MORAL 12 TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT CORP. FILED & ENTERED ON 12/03/2019 13 Defendants

15 OPINION & ORDER 16 Before the court is Defendant Triple-S Management Corporation’s (hereinafter “TSM”) 17 Motion for Reconsideration filed on October 17, 2019, [Dkt. No. 77] and Trustee’s Opposition to 18 19 TSM’s Request of Reconsideration filed on 10/30/2019 [Dkt. No. 78]. For the reasons set forth 20 below the Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration is Denied. 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 applies to bankruptcy cases pursuant to Federal Rule 22 Bankruptcy Procedure 9023. Accordingly, if, as in this case, the motion is “filed no later than 14 23 days after the entry of judgment,” the motion is examined under the severity of Rule 59(e). Id.; 24 Marie v. Allied Home Mortgage Corp., 402 F.3d 1, FN2 (1st Cir. 2005) (“We note that it is very 25 26 difficult to prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion.”). For a Rule 59 motion to succeed movant “must 27 either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence.” 1 || Cherena v. Coors Brewing Co., 20 F.Supp.2d 282, 287 (D.P.R. 1998) (quoting Jorge Rivera Surill 2 & 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

7 ||v.CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2nd Cir.1995)). 8 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

14 raised in the Plaintiffs opposition compelling and legally sound. The Defendant has failed t 15 establish the legal requirements for reconsideration under Rule 9023 of the Federal Rules o 16 || 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. 19 ‘ Pos. 20 TS Ais 21 Brian K. Tester U.S. Bankruptcy Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 -2-