Burdick v. Dold et al

United States Bankruptcy Court
District of Massachusetts
In re: 	)
)
WILLIAM R. LEMASURIER, 	) 	Chapter 7
DEBTOR. 	) 	Case No.07-44188-JBR
____________________________________)
)
JOHN A. BURDICK 	)
PLAINTIFF, 	)
v. 	) 	ADV. PRO. NO. 08-4161
MICHELLE DOLD 	)
DEFENDANT. 	)
____________________________________)
DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT OR FOR A NEW TRIAL AND TO AMEND FINDINGS [# 24]
This matter having come before the Court on the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment or
for a New Trial and to Amend Findings [# 24] (the “Motion”) and the Trustee’s Opposition
thereto [#25] and after due consideration of the Motion, the Opposition and the Court’s decision
read into the record on November 30, 2009, the Court hereby makes the following findings of
fact and conclusions of law:
1. A motion for a new trial is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 made applicable to
bankruptcy cases by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023. In a nonjury trial, a new trial may be granted “for
any reason for which a rehearing has heretofore been granted in a suit in equity in federal court.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(2). The same rule permits a court in a nonjury trial to open a judgment
when a new trial is requested in order to “take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and
conclusions of law or make new ones, and direct the entry of a new judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
Case 08-04161 Doc 26 Filed 12/18/09 Entered 12/18/09 16:56:20 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

59(a)(2). “Courts do not grant new trials unless it is reasonably clear that prejudicial error has
crept into the record or that substantial justice has not been done, and the burden of showing
harmful error rests on the party seeking the new trial.” Sibley v. Lemaire, 184 F.3d 481, 487 (5th
Cir.1999). “A principle that strikes very deep is that a new trial will not be granted on grounds
not called to the court’s attention during the trial unless the error was so fundamental that gross
injustice would result.” Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2805 (2d Ed. 2009
Supp.).
2. In many respects a motion under Fed., R. Bankr. P. 9023 is similar to one for relief
from judgment under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024, which incorporates Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.
Reconsideration of a prior order or judgment under these rules is appropriate in limited
circumstances, however, and only to correct a substantial injustice. Evidence that was available
but not introduced does not meet the stardard in most instances. “[T]he purpose of a motion for
reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence. A party may not submit evidence that is not newly discovered in support of a motion
for reconsideration.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), cert denied,
476 U.S. 1171 (1986) (citations omitted). A motion for reconsideration is appropriate when
there has been a significant change in the law or facts since the submission of the issue to the
court; it is not a vehicle for an unsuccessful party to rehash the same facts and same arguments
previously presented. Keyes v. National Railroad Passenger, 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D.Pa.
1991).
3. The Motion fails to allege any newly discovered evidence, any manifest error of law,
or any significant change in the law that would affect the prior outcome. Indeed the point of the
Motion is that the Defendant would now like to introduce documentary evidence to support her
Case 08-04161 Doc 26 Filed 12/18/09 Entered 12/18/09 16:56:20 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

testimony since the lack of such evidence was one reason why the Court rejected her testimony.
4. In light of the above discussion, the Court need not address whether the time to file
such motion when judgment entered on November 30, 2009,1 is the 10-day limitation of prior
Rule 59(b) or the new 14- day period.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is hereby DENIED.
Dated: December 18, 2009 	___________________________
Joel B. Rosenthal
United States Bankruptcy Judge.
1The Motion incorrectly states that the order entered on December 3, 2009.
Case 08-04161 Doc 26 Filed 12/18/09 Entered 12/18/09 16:56:20 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3