MAYAGUEZ MEDICAL CENTER DR RAMON E BETANCES INC et v. MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL AND HEALTH SERVICES INC

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
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
IN RE: 	CASE NO. 10-4905
Chapter 	11
MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL AND
HEALTH SERVICES, INC. 	Adversary No. 10-00146
Debtor(s)
MAYAGUEZ MEDICAL CENTER DR
RAMON E BETANCES, INC.
Plaintiff
vs.
MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL AND
HEALTH SERVICES, INC.
Defendant FILED & ENTERED ON 06/14/2012
OPINION AND ORDER
This proceeding is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Amend Findings and Judgment
Pursuant to Rule 7052 [Dkt. No. 123] and the Plaintiff's Opposition to the Defendant’s Motion [Dkt.
No. 138]. In essence, the Defendant requests that the Court reconsider its findings of facts and
conclusions of law entered on March 12, 2012 [Dkt. No. 113], under Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure 7052 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52. These findings of facts pertain to a
complaint filed by Mayaguez Medical Center Dr. Emeterio Betances, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) against
Case:10-00146-BKT Doc#:153 Filed:06/14/12 Entered:06/14/12 15:18:01 Desc: Main
Document Page 1 of 3

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
Medical Educational and Health Services, Inc. (“Defendant”) for declaratory judgment, collection of
monies, and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201. For the reasons set forth below, the
Defendant’s Motion to Amend Findings and Judgment Pursuant to Rule 7052 is hereby denied.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 52(b) permits “the correction of any manifest errors of law or fact that are discovered,
upon reconsideration, by the trial court.” National Metal Finishing Company v. Barclays American
Commercial, Inc., 899 F.2d 119, 122 (1st Cir. 1990). Rule 52(b) motions apply only when a party
demonstrates a manifest error of law or fact, or in limited situations to present newly discovered
evidence. In re Braithwaite, 197 B.R. 834, 835 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1996) (citing Fontenot v. Mesa
Petroleum Co., 791 F.2d 1207, 1219 (5th Cir. 1986)). “A motion to amend the Court's findings of
fact should be based on a ‘manifest error of law or mistake of fact, and a judgment should not be set
aside except for substantial reasons.’” In re Novak, 223 B.R. 363, 371 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1997)
(citing Ramos v. Boehringer Manheim Corp., 896 F. Supp. 1213, 1214 (S.D.Fla. 1994)). Manifest
error is defined as “an error that is obvious and indisputable and that warrants reversal on appeal.”
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law (1st ed. 2001).
Motions to amend should not be "employed to introduce evidence that was available at trial
but was not proffered, to relitigate old issues, to advance new theories, or to secure a rehearing on
the merits,” Fontenot v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 791 F.2d 1207, 1219 (5th Cir. 1986). Rule 52(b) was
not 	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
In the Defendant’s Motion to Amend Findings and Judgment Pursuant to Rule 7052, the
Defendant did not demonstrate the existence of manifest errors of law or fact in this Court’s original
Case:10-00146-BKT Doc#:153 Filed:06/14/12 Entered:06/14/12 15:18:01 Desc: Main
Document Page 2 of 3

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
findings. Also, the Defendant did not present newly discovered evidence.
Most of the proposed changes fall outside the scope of the trial. The trial was limited to
determining whether the Municipality of Mayaguez validly terminated its contract with the
Defendant. Therefore, the trial was limited to the issue of liability. All of the Defendant’s proposed
conclusions of law and most of the Defendant’s proposed additional findings of fact do not pertain to
the procedure that was utilized by the Municipality of Mayaguez to terminate the contract. The
proposed additional fact (Dkt. No. 123, page 5, letter - l) is the only proposed fact that pertains to the
termination procedure, but this proposed fact is actually a conclusion of law - a conclusion of law
that was already adopted by this Court in its March 12, 2012 Opinion and Order.
Rule 52(b) is not intended to allow litigants to prosper by recounting arguments that were
previously heard and rejected by the court. All of the proposed additions were previously heard at
trial, and none of the Defendant’s proposed amendments demonstrate that the original findings of
facts and conclusions of law contain a manifest error.
Because the Defendant has failed to establish a manifest error - and because the proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law were previously heard at trial - this Court finds that the
Defendant is not entitled to reconsideration under F.R.B.P., Rule 7052 or F.R.C.P., Rule 52(b).
WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Amend Findings and
Judgment Pursuant to Rule 7052 shall be, and it hereby is, DENIED.
Brian K. Tester
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Case:10-00146-BKT Doc#:153 Filed:06/14/12 Entered:06/14/12 15:18:01 Desc: Main
Document Page 3 of 3