Opinion
23-00099 3:23-cv-99-MOC
06-09-2023
In re ALRICH PUMP, LLC, et al., Debtors. v. ALDRICH PUMP LLC, Appellee. NON-PARTY CERTAIN MATCHING CLAIMANTS, Appellants,
CHAPTER 11
Appeal from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina
ORDER
MAX O. COGBURN JR. JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on Debtors' Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. No. 7). Debtors seek reconsideration of this Court's order dated April 26, 2023, in which the Court granted a Motion to Stay Pending Appeal, by Non-Party Certain Matching Claimants.
Here, Debtors have not identified any of the narrow circumstances appropriate for granting a motion to reconsider. Debtors have not argued that new evidence has been discovered, that there has been an intervening development or change in the law, or that there is a need to correct a clear error or prevent a manifest injustice. For the most part, Debtors simply rehash their previous argument in opposition to the motion to stay. The Court has already carefully considered the parties' arguments and found in favor of granting the stay. Debtors' current arguments have done nothing to persuade the Court otherwise.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), “any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties” may be revisited by the court at any time before an entry of final judgment. FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b). Motions for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) are appropriately granted only in narrow circumstances: (1) the discovery of new evidence, (2) an intervening development or change in the controlling law, or (3) the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Bullabough v. Watson, No. 3:11-CV-639-RJC, 2012 WL 664943, at *1 (W.D. N.C. Feb. 29, 2012).
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
(1) The Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc. No. 7), is DENIED.
MAX O. COGBOURN JR. JUDGE