MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL AND HEALTH SERVICES INC et al v. MUNICIPALITY OF MAYAGUEZ et al

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. 10-00148
Debtor(s)
MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL AND
HEALTH SERVICES, INC.
Plaintiff
vs.
MUNICIPALITY OF MAYAGUEZ, ET
ALS.
Defendant FILED & ENTERED ON 06/18/2012
OPINION AND ORDER
This proceeding is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration
Requesting the Court to Make Additional Findings of Fact and Amend Findings of Fact 10, 14 and
18 [Dkt. No. 258] and the Plaintiff's Opposition to the Defendants' Motion [Dkt. No. 292]. 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 Als. (“Defendants”) for
Case:10-00148-BKT Doc#:312 Filed:06/18/12 Entered:06/18/12 13:16:25 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
among other causes of action - recovery of money/property, injunctive relief and declaratory
judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration Requesting
the Court to Make Additional Findings of Fact and Amend Findings of Fact 10, 14 and 18.
Rule 52(b) is not intended to allow litigants to prosper by recounting arguments that were
previously heard and rejected by the court. In this case, none of the Defendant’s proposed
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
Case:10-00148-BKT Doc#:312 Filed:06/18/12 Entered:06/18/12 13:16:25 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
amendments demonstrate that the original findings contain a manifest error, and all of the proposed
additions were previously heard at trial and rejected by this Court. The Defendant does not argue
that it is presenting newly discovered evidence, and its proposed amendments and additions do not
demonstrate a manifest error of law or fact.
In addition, the proposed amendments and additions fall outside the scope of the trial. The
scope of this trial was limited to determining whether the contract between the parties was validly
terminated. This Court found that the Defendant did not follow the termination procedure that was
clearly established contractually. None of the Defendant's proposed amendments or additions pertain
to the process that the Defendant used to terminate the contract. Therefore, they are not essential
findings for the judgment made by this Court.
Because the Defendant has failed to establish a manifest error - and because the proposed
additional findings of fact were previously heard at trial and rejected by this Court - the 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 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration Requesting
the Court to Make Additional Findings of Fact and Amend Findings of Fact 10, 14 and 18 shall be,
and it hereby is, DENIED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 18th day of June, 2012.
Brian K. Tester
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Case:10-00148-BKT Doc#:312 Filed:06/18/12 Entered:06/18/12 13:16:25 Desc: Main
Document Page 3 of 3