Weil v. Elliott

-1-
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
26
27
28
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY DIVISION
In re:
Edward E. Elliott,
Debtor.
CHAPTER 7
Case No.: 1:11-bk-23855-VK
Adv. No.: 1:13-ap-01118-VK
ORDER DENYING “MOTION TO REOPEN
CASE”
Diane C. Weil,
Plaintiff,
v.
Edward E. Elliott,
Defendant.
[No hearing required]
On June 4, 2013, Diane C. Weil (“Plaintiff”) commenced the above-captioned adversary
proceeding by filing a complaint [docket #1] (the “Complaint”) against Edward E. Elliott
(“Defendant”) for declaratory relief, revocation of Defendant’s discharge, and a preliminary and
permanent injunction.
On January 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment against Defendant
[docket #37] (the “MSJ”). On April 7, 2014, the Court granted the MSJ and entered judgment in
favor of Plaintiff [docket #63] (the “Judgment”).
FILED & ENTERED
JUL 24 2014
CLERK U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT
Central District of California
BY DEPUTY CLERK	Bever
Case 1:13-ap-01118-VK Doc 84 Filed 07/24/14 Entered 07/24/14 07:43:18 Desc
Main Document Page 1 of 3

-2-
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
26
27
28
On April 15, 2014, Defendant filed a pleading entitled “Motion to Reopen Case” [docket
#65] (the “Motion”). It appears that Defendant has not served the Motion on Plaintiff. The
Motion also is not supported by any evidence. Although his pleading is titled a motion to reopen,
Defendant does not appear to be requesting that the adversary proceeding be reopened; it has not
been closed. Instead, Defendant appears to seek post-judgment relief, i.e., alteration of the
Judgment.
In the Motion, Defendant does not identify the statutory authority under which he seeks
relief from the Judgment. In light of this lack of direction from Defendant, the Court will assess
the Motion under the applicable standards governing Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“Rule 59(e)”), as
applied to bankruptcy cases by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (“Rule 60(b)”),
as applied to bankruptcy cases by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024.
A motion for reconsideration filed within fourteen days of the entry of judgment is
treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023, incorporating
Rule 59(e). American Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. North American Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892,
898-899 (9th Cir. 2001). Rule 59(e) allows reconsideration if the court “(1) is presented with
newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly
unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. There may also be other, highly
unusual circumstances warranting reconsideration.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or.
V. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal citations omitted).
A motion for reconsideration also may be construed as a relief from a judgment under
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024, which incorporates Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b) permits relief from “a final
judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud . . . misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied,
released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or
applying it prospectively is no longer equitable, or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the
operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Case 1:13-ap-01118-VK Doc 84 Filed 07/24/14 Entered 07/24/14 07:43:18 Desc
Main Document Page 2 of 3

-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
26
27
28
A motion for reconsideration may not be used to ask the court to reevaluate what it has
already decided—rightly or wrongly. United States v. Rezzocino, 32 F.Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D.
Ariz. 1998) (citing Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.
Va. 1983)). A court may, in its discretion, grant relief from an apparent error of law if the party
moving for reconsideration brings that error to the court’s attention within a reasonable period of
time. Id.
Here, the Motion suggests that Defendant’s bankruptcy counsel is at fault for the
omissions and inaccuracies in his schedules of assets and liabilities, and Defendant should not be
held accountable. Defendant apparently contends that he did not have the requisite intent to
hinder, delay, or defraud creditors that would justify the revocation of his discharge. However,
Defendant presented this argument in his opposition to the MSJ [docket #58]. Prior to entry of
the Judgment, the Court considered Defendant’s position and concluded that, taking into account
the evidence presented, Defendant’s misrepresentations were intentional, and there was no
genuine issue for trial. Defendant presents no other justification for altering, amending, or
reconsidering the Judgment based on the standards set forth above.
Defendant not having demonstrated that the Court should alter, amend, or grant other
relief from the Judgment, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the Motion is denied.
###
Date: July 24, 2014
Case 1:13-ap-01118-VK Doc 84 Filed 07/24/14 Entered 07/24/14 07:43:18 Desc
Main Document Page 3 of 3