Opinion
Case No. 99-72801 Adversary No. 99-7175
October 27, 2000
OPINION
This matter came before the Court on Motion for Reconsideration filed by Van Diest Supply Co. ("Van Diest"). The Motion relates to the Court's Order entered October 16, 2000 in the above-captioned adversary proceeding, granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Van Diest contends that the Court's Order is incorrect and should be vacated for at least three reasons.
"Motions for reconsideration" are not formally designated by either the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, except as provided in Bankruptcy Rule 3008, which allows reconsideration of orders allowing or disallowing claims against the estate. Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as adopted by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9023, permits a party to move the court to alter or amend a judgment entered by filing a motion to alter or amend, not one styled as a "motion for reconsideration."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has instructed courts in the circuit to treat all substantive post-judgment motions filed within ten days of judgment under Rule 59. Charles v. Daley, 799 F.2d 343 (7th Cir. 1986). Because Van Diest's "Motion for Reconsideration" was filed on October 24, 2000, or eight days after the entry of the Order on October 16, 2000, the procedural standards and authorities applicable to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 govern.
Rule 59(e) motions serve a narrow purpose and must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact, or must present newly discovered evidence. Moro v. Shell Oil Co., 91 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir. 1996); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986). Rule 59 allows a court to correct its own mistakes, thereby sparing the parties and the appellate courts the burden of unnecessary appellate proceedings. Russell v. Delco Remy Division of General Motors Corp., 51 F.3d 746, 749 (7th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The function of a motion to alter or amend a judgment is not to serve as a vehicle to re-litigate old matters or present the case under a new legal theory. Moro v. Shell Oil Co., supra, 91 F.3d at 876 (citation omitted). The purpose of such a motion is not to give the moving party another bite at the apple. In re BNT Terminals, Inc., 125 B.R. 963, 977 (Bankr.N.D.Ill. 1990) (citations omitted). The rulings of a bankruptcy court "are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant's pleasure." See Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Industries, Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D.Ill. 1988). "A motion brought under Rule 59(e) is not a procedural folly to be filed by a losing party who simply disagrees with the decision." In re BNT Terminals, Inc., supra, 125 B.R. at 977. The decision to grant or deny a Rule 59(e) motion is within the Court's discretion. See LB Credit Corp. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 49 F.3d 1263, 1267 (7th Cir. 1995).
In this case, the Court finds that Van Diest has failed to present newly discovered evidence or make any showing that the Court committed a manifest error of law or fact. In fact, the Court has considered and, in the Court's opinion, appropriately and adequately addressed in its Order the issues raised by Van Diest in its Motion for Reconsideration. Accordingly, Van Diest's Motion for Reconsideration must be denied.
This Opinion is to serve as Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Rule 7052 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth in an Opinion entered this day,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Van Diest Supply Co.'s Motion for Reconsideration be and is hereby denied.