REDONDO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

1
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
In re: 	:
:
REDONDO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, 	: 	Case No. 02-02887 (GAC)
:
Debtor 	: 	Chapter 11
___________________________________:
DECISION AND ORDER
The debtor had sought an order to show cause against Luis A.
Rivera 	Cabrera 	("Rivera") 	and 	the 	Puerto 	Rico 	Highway 	and
Transportation 	Authority 	("PRHTA") 	for 	violation 	of 	11 	U.S.C. 	§
1141 	and 	the 	injunction 	included 	in 	the 	debtor's 	confirmed 	plan
(dkt. 	#1542). 	The 	Court 	issued 	an 	order 	to 	show 	cause 	on 	August
16, 	2006, 	granting 	Rivera 	and 	PRHTA 	twenty 	days 	to 	respond 	(dkt.
#1587). 	PRHTA filed a motion to show cause on September 22, 2006
(dkt. 	#1605). 	The 	debtor 	filed 	a 	reply 	(dkt. 	#1625). 	The 	Court
scheduled a hearing for January 31, 2007 (dkt. #1645).
PRHTA 	appeared 	at 	the 	hearing 	and 	Rivera 	was 	represented 	by
the 	same 	attorney, 	but 	Rivera 	did 	not 	personally 	appear 	and 	his
non-appearance 	was 	not 	explained 	until 	the 	hearing. 	The 	Court
found 	the 	respondents 	in 	contempt 	for 	having 	violated 	the
provisions 	of 	11 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1141. 	The 	Court 	sanctioned 	the
respondents in the amount of $5,000, which the Court ordered to be
paid 	directly 	to 	the 	debtor 	within 	thirty 	days. 	The 	Court 	also
granted 	the 	debtor's 	request 	for 	attorney's 	fees, 	allowed 	twenty
days 	for 	the 	filing 	of 	an 	application 	and 	allowed 	PRHTA 	ten 	days
Case:02-02887-ESL11 Doc#:1765 Filed:06/08/07 Entered:06/08/07 17:20:33 Desc:
Main Document Page 1 of 6

2
thereafter 	to 	object. 	The 	Court’s 	order 	was 	entered 	on 	February
21, 1007 (dkt. #1693).
The debtor filed an application on February 22, 2007, seeking
the sum of $4,312.50 for the defense of the third party complaint
in 	the 	local 	court 	(dkt. 	#1695). 	PRHTA 	did 	not 	oppose 	the 	fee
request. 	Thereafter, 	on 	March 	8, 	2007, 	the 	debtor 	filed 	a
submission 	of 	incurred 	attorney's 	fees 	related 	to 	prosecution 	of
the 	order 	to 	show 	cause, 	requesting 	the 	sum 	of 	$8,400.00 	(dkt.
#1706). 	PRHTA did not oppose this request. 	On April 4, 2007, the
debtor 	filed 	a 	motion 	(dkt. 	#1729) 	seeking 	to 	have 	Rivera
incarcerated for failing to comply with the Court's order awarding
the debtor sanctions and attorney’s fees.
On April 5, the Court entered an order again requiring Rivera
and PRHTA to pay the debtor the $5,000.00 in sanctions, as well as
$12,712.50 in attorney’s fees within fifteen days (dkt. #1730). 	On
April 20, 2007, PRHTA and Rivera filed a motion to inform, for the
consignation of funds and for reconsideration (dkt. #1738). 	PRHTA
and Rivera informed that $5,000.00 had been forwarded to the debtor
and 	requested 	reconsideration 	of 	the 	Court’s 	order 	to 	pay 	the
additional sum of $12,712.50 in attorney’s fees. 	PRHTA and Rivera
also consigned the attorney’s fees with the Court in the debtor’s
name. 	PRHTA and Rivera contend that the Court’s order scheduling
the hearing of January 31, 2007 did not require Rivera’s personal
appearance 	and 	that 	Rivera 	was 	in 	Washington 	D.C. 	on 	an 	official
Case:02-02887-ESL11 Doc#:1765 Filed:06/08/07 Entered:06/08/07 17:20:33 Desc:
Main Document Page 2 of 6

3
government 	trip 	from 	January 	30 	to 	February 	2, 	2007. 	PRHTA 	and
Rivera also argue that the debtor did not file the fee applications
within the twenty days allowed by the court and that the award of
fees 	should 	be 	reconsidered 	since 	it 	constitutes 	a 	manifest
injustice 	based 	on 	the 	untimeliness 	of 	the 	motions 	and 	the
exaggerated 	amount 	sought. 	PRHTA 	and 	Rivera 	also 	argue 	that 	the
Court 	erred 	in 	previously 	concluding 	that 	they 	failed 	to 	appear
before the Court at the hearing of January 31, 2007.
PRHTA filed a second urgent motion to inform that the Clerk’s
Office returned the check consigned for the debtor because it was
not made payable to the Clerk and requested ten days to replace the
check (dkt. #1739).
The 	debtor 	filed 	an 	answer 	to 	the 	motion 	to 	inform, 	for 	the
consignation 	of 	funds 	and 	for 	reconsideration 	(dkt. 	#1746). 	The
debtor claims that the motions for attorney’s fees were filed on a
timely basis, since the Court’s order directing the debtor to file
the 	motions 	was 	not 	entered 	until 	February 	21, 	2007. 	Moreover,
although 	the 	debtor 	contends 	that 	Rivera 	should 	have 	appeared 	at
the hearing of January 31, 2007, the debtor argues that attorney’s
fees were imposed against PRHTA and Rivera for contemptuous conduct
in violating the order of confirmation and 11 U.S.C. § 1141. 	The
debtor 	also 	argues 	that 	PRHTA 	and 	Rivera 	did 	not 	seek
reconsideration 	of 	the 	original 	order 	requiring 	the 	payment 	of
attorney’s fees and did not appeal. 	The debtor also contends that
Case:02-02887-ESL11 Doc#:1765 Filed:06/08/07 Entered:06/08/07 17:20:33 Desc:
Main Document Page 3 of 6

4
the 	belated 	request 	for 	reconsideration 	fails 	to 	satisfy 	the
standard 	for 	reconsideration 	and 	that 	PRHTA 	and 	Rivera, 	while
stating that the attorney’s fees are exaggerated, fail to point out
even 	one 	entry 	in 	the 	applications 	that 	could 	be 	considered
unwarranted. 	In sum, the debtor argues that the contentions raised
are a repetition of the oral argument at the hearing.
DISCUSSION
The 	Court’s 	order 	holding 	PRHTA 	and 	Rivera 	in 	contempt 	was
entered on February 21, 2007. 	Thus, the debtor had until March 13,
2007 to file an application for compensation. 	The debtor filed the
applications on February 22 and March 8, 2007. 	PRHTA had until, at
the latest, March 19, 2007, to object to the fees requested. 	PRHTA
did not object. 	On April 5, 2007, the Court again ordered Rivera
and PRHTA to pay the sanctions and the attorney’s fees. 	PRHTA did
not 	seek 	reconsideration 	of 	this 	order 	until 	April 	20, 	2007, 	or
fifteen days after entry of the order.
As a request to alter or amend the Court’s order pursuant to
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9023, which makes Federal Rule
of 	Civil 	Procedure 	59 	applicable, 	PRHTA 	and 	Rivera’s 	motion 	is
clearly untimely. 	This Rule states that “[a]ny motion to alter or
amend a judgment must be filed no later than 10 days after entry of
the 	judgment.” 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	59(e). 	Likewise, 	under 	Federal
Rule 	of 	Bankruptcy 	Procedure 	7052, 	which 	makes 	Federal 	Rule 	of
Civil Procedure 52 applicable, the motion must be filed within ten
Case:02-02887-ESL11 Doc#:1765 Filed:06/08/07 Entered:06/08/07 17:20:33 Desc:
Main Document Page 4 of 6

5
days after entry of the judgment. 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b). 	Assuming
that 	PRHTA 	is 	actually 	proceeding 	under 	Federal 	Rule 	of 	Civil
Procedure 	60(b), 	made 	applicable 	by 	Federal 	Rule 	of 	Bankruptcy
Procedure 9024, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that
relief 	from 	judgment 	under 	this 	rule 	is 	an 	extraordinary 	remedy
and that motions seeking to invoke it should be granted sparingly.
Gonzalez-Pina 	v. 	Rodriguez, 	407 	F.3d 	425, 	433 	(1st 	Cir.
2005)(citing Karak v. Bursaw Oil Corp., 288 F.3d 15, 19 (1st Cir.
2002)). 	The 	basic 	grounds 	for 	granting 	relief 	from 	judgment 	are
mistake, 	inadvertence, 	surprise, 	excusable 	neglect, 	newly
discovered evidence, fraud, etc. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 	PRHTA
and 	Rivera 	have 	not 	alleged 	any 	of 	these 	grounds, 	but 	rather 	are
attempting 	to 	satisfy 	the 	less 	stringent 	standard 	imposed 	by
Federal 	Rules 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	52 	or 	59, 	for 	which 	they 	do 	not
qualify.
While 	the 	Court 	noted 	at 	the 	hearing 	of 	January 	31, 	that
Rivera failed to appear, the basis for the imposition of attorney’s
fees 	on 	PRHTA 	and 	Rivera 	was 	for 	violating 	the 	order 	of
confirmation. 	PRHTA 	and 	Rivera 	failed 	to 	object 	to 	the
applications 	filed 	and 	even 	now, 	state 	that 	the 	applications 	are
exaggerated 	but 	fail 	to 	explain 	why 	or 	to 	object 	to 	any 	of 	the
specific 	entries. 	Accordingly, 	the 	request 	for 	reconsideration
will be denied.
Case:02-02887-ESL11 Doc#:1765 Filed:06/08/07 Entered:06/08/07 17:20:33 Desc:
Main Document Page 5 of 6

6
ORDER
WHEREFORE 	IT 	IS 	ORDERED 	that 	PRHTA 	and 	Rivera’s 	motion 	for
reconsideration 	(dkt. 	#1738) 	of 	the 	Court’s 	order 	(dkt. 	#1730)
requiring 	that 	they 	pay 	the 	sum 	of 	$12,712.50 	in 	attorney’s 	fees
shall be, and it hereby is, DENIED. 	PRHTA and Rivera are granted
fifteen days to pay the attorney’s fees.
SO ORDERED.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 8th day of June, 2007.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Gerardo A. Carlo
_______________________
GERARDO A. CARLO
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Case:02-02887-ESL11 Doc#:1765 Filed:06/08/07 Entered:06/08/07 17:20:33 Desc:
Main Document Page 6 of 6