Opinion
Case No. 02-09721-H7, Jointly Administered with Case No. 02-09720-H7.
February 22, 2006
ORDER DENYING CLAIMANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
John Trevino Espinoza, pro se, submitted a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order sustaining the Chapter 7 Trustee's objection to his proof of claim. Pursuant to this Court's internal practice and procedure, the Court reviews a motion for reconsideration on the merits before authorizing a scheduled hearing. The Court has reviewed Espinoza's motion and finds it inappropriate to set a hearing.
Espinoza relies on Federal Rule Bankruptcy Procedure 9024 which incorporates Federal Rule Civil Procedure 60. Espinoza contends the Court should reconsider its prior ruling because of newly discovered evidence. [FRCP 60 (b) (2)] . Under Rule 60 (b) (2), "the movant must show the evidence (1) existed at the time of the trial, (2) could not have been discovered through due diligence, and (3) was `of such magnitude that production of it earlier would have been likely to change the disposition of the case.'" Jones v. Aero/Chem Corp., 921 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted) .
After a careful review of the motion, the Court concludes that Espinoza has not discovered any new evidence. Espinoza simply makes the same, or substantially the same, arguments in his motion for reconsideration that he made in his pleadings filed in opposition to the Trustee's objection to his claim. Because there are no grounds for reconsideration of this Court's prior ruling, it is inappropriate to make the Chapter 7 Trustee bear the cost of a response and a hearing. No hearing will be held and the motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.