David Coletta

Because of the courts' interest in the finality of judgments, “[m]otions for1
. . . reconsideration should be granted sparingly and may not be used to
rehash arguments which have already been briefed by the parties and
1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: DAVID COLETTA : Chapter 11
:
Debtor(s) :
: Bky. No. 07-10285ELF
:
O R D E R
AND NOW WHEREAS, on October 29, 2007, Nicholas Mattera having filed a Motion
to Reopen Closed Case and Annul Automatic Stay (“the Motion to Annul”) (Docket Entry Nos.
18, 21-22) in the above case;
AND, by Memorandum Opinion and Order dated December 17, 2007 and entered
December 19, 2007, the court having granted the Motion to Annul in large part (Docket Entry
No. 26);
AND, on December 21, 2007, the Debtor having filed a motion entitled “Motion to
Reconsider Memorandum Opinion and Order Dated December 17, 2007" (“the Motion to
Reconsider”) (Docket Entry No. 27);
AND, the purpose of a motion for reconsideration being to correct manifest errors of law
or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. E.g., Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906,
909 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171, 106 S.Ct. 2895 (1986);
AND, it being an accepted legal principle that “courts should grant such motions
sparingly because of their strong interest in finality of judgment; ”1
Case 07-10285-elf Doc 36 Filed 01/09/08 Entered 02/08/08 10:25:38 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

considered and decided by the Court.” Ciena Corp. v. Corvis Corp., 352
F.Supp.2d 526, 527 (D. Del. 2005). A motion for reconsideration may not
be used to give a litigant a “second bite at the apple.” See Bhatnagar v.
Surrendra Overseas Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220, 1231 (3d Cir. 1995). A litigant
that fails in its first attempt to persuade a court to adopt its position may
not use a motion for reconsideration either to attempt a new approach or
correct mistakes it made in its previous one. A motion for reconsideration
“should not be used as a means to argue new facts or issues that
inexcusably were not presented to the court in the matter previously
decided.” Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F.Supp. 1239, 1240 (D.
Del. 1990) (quoted in Bhatnagar, 52 F.3d at 1231). Therefore, it is
“improper ... to ask the Court to rethink what [it] had already thought
through-rightly or wrongly.” Glendon Energy Co. v. Bor. of Glendon, 836
F.Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993).
PBI Performance Products, Inc. v. NorFab Corp., 514 F.Supp.2d 732, 743-444 (E.D. Pa. 2007);
accord, In re Kuhar, 2007 WL 2245912, *2 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Aug. 1, 2007) (citations omitted);
For the most part, the Motion to Reconsider reflects nothing more than the2
Debtor’s dissatisfaction with my resolution of the competing interests that I identified and
considered in ruling on the Motion to Annul. I discussed those competing interests with
specificity in the Memorandum Opinion. I will not repeat that process simply because the Debtor
is disappointed with the outcome of the litigation.
The Motion to Reconsider does articulate one point that might be considered to be
an argument that I committed a manifest error of law. The Debtor contends that the “[o]rder is
unprecedented in allowing the factor of notice of the bankruptcy filing at the time of filing to play
a crucial if not determinative role in the determination of whether a stay can be annulled.”
Debtor’s Motion ¶9. The Debtor expresses a concern that my decision establishes a precedent
that “will be extremely damaging to pro se parties” and that “seriously undermines the automatic
stay.” Id.
Respectfully, I suggest that the Debtor has misinterpreted the Memorandum
Opinion. I did not annul the stay simply because the Debtor failed to give notice of the
bankruptcy filing to Mattera after the Debtor filed his chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. Rather, I
annulled the stay after I: (1) found that the Debtor’s conduct after he filed the petition and failed
2
AND, the Motion to Reconsider failing to present: (a) arguments not previously
considered by the court; (b) any persuasive argument that the court previously committed a
manifest error of law or (c) any newly discovered evidence.2
Case 07-10285-elf Doc 36 Filed 01/09/08 Entered 02/08/08 10:25:38 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

to give prompt notice of the case to Mattera was itself inequitable and (2) considered, inter alia,
the relative culpability of the parties. See In re Coletta, 2007 WL 4380007, at 6-8 (Bankr. E.D.
Pa. Dec.17, 2007). I also observe that this case does not involve a pro se debtor, but one who
was represented by experienced bankruptcy counsel at all relevant times.
3
It is hereby ORDERED that
1. The Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.
2. The hearing presently scheduled for January 30, 2008 is CANCELED.
Date: January 9, 2008
ERIC L. FRANK
U.S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
Case 07-10285-elf Doc 36 Filed 01/09/08 Entered 02/08/08 10:25:38 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3