Filed: Sep. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 09, 2015
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S RULE 59(E) MOTION TO ALTER/AMEND JUDGMENT AND TO REINSTATE ADVERSARY PROCEEDING WENDELIN I. LIPP , Bankruptcy Judge . Before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion asking this Court to reconsider entry of the Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Default Judgment (the "Motion to Alter or Amend"), the Defendant's Opposition thereto and the Plaintiff's Reply. For the following reasons, the Motion to Alter or Amend is denied. "A motion to alter or reconsider a judgment
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S RULE 59(E) MOTION TO ALTER/AMEND JUDGMENT AND TO REINSTATE ADVERSARY PROCEEDING WENDELIN I. LIPP , Bankruptcy Judge . Before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion asking this Court to reconsider entry of the Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Default Judgment (the "Motion to Alter or Amend"), the Defendant's Opposition thereto and the Plaintiff's Reply. For the following reasons, the Motion to Alter or Amend is denied. "A motion to alter or reconsider a judgment ..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S RULE 59(E) MOTION TO ALTER/AMEND JUDGMENT AND TO REINSTATE ADVERSARY PROCEEDING
WENDELIN I. LIPP, Bankruptcy Judge.
Before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion asking this Court to reconsider entry of the Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Default Judgment (the "Motion to Alter or Amend"), the Defendant's Opposition thereto and the Plaintiff's Reply. For the following reasons, the Motion to Alter or Amend is denied.
"A motion to alter or reconsider a judgment is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted sparingly because of the interests in finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources." In re Henning, 420 B.R. 773, 784 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 2009). "While the Rule itself provides no standard for when a district court may grant such a motion, courts interpreting Rule 59(e) have recognized three grounds for amending an earlier judgment: (1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993). "Rule 59(e) is not intended to be used by an unhappy litigant as a means for rehashing matters a court has already decided." In re Henning, 420 B.R. at 785.
In this case, the Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Default Judgment (the "Default Order") is based on the Court's findings that the Plaintiff failed to comply with numerous Orders of this Court and the Plaintiff's bad faith conduct in connection with this proceeding. The Motion to Alter or Amend does not cite any intervening changes in controlling law or present any new evidence. Nor does the Motion to Alter or Amend demonstrate that the Default Order should be amended to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. There is simply no basis under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to grant the relief requested.
For these reasons, it is, by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland, hereby
ORDERED, that the Motion to Alter or Amend is denied.
SO ORDERED.
