Opinion
Case No. 02-15186-JBR.
September 7, 2007
DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO RECONSIDER [# 383]
This matter having come before the Court on the Motion to Reconsider (the "Motion") [#383], seeking reconsideration of the Court's Order of August 16, 2007 [#381] approving the Chapter 7 Trustee's Final Report and Account Before Distribution. After due consideration of the Motion, the Chapter 7 Trustee's, Response [#385], and the underlying pleadings, the Court hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. A motion to reconsider is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) made applicable to bankruptcy cases by Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9023 or Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 made applicable to bankruptcy cases by Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9024. "[T]he purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. A party may not submit evidence that is not newly discovered in support of a motion for reconsideration." Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), cert denied, 476 U.S. 1171 (1986) (citations omitted). A motion for reconsideration is appropriate when there has been a significant change in the law or facts since the submission of the issue to the court; it is not a vehicle for an unsuccessful party to rehash the same facts and same arguments previously presented. Keyes v. National Railroad Passenger, 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D.Pa. 1991).
2. The Motion fails to allege any newly discovered evidence, any manifest error of law, or any significant change in the law that would affect the prior outcome.
3. The Debtor's argument that he did not receive notice of the hearing on the Chapter 7 Trustee's Final Report and Account Before Distribution, held on August 16, 2007, "from the trustee" mistakenly assumes it is the Chapter 7 Trustee's responsibility to provide such notice. It is not. Fed.R.Bankr.P. 2002(f). If the Debtor is arguing that he did not receive notice, his position is undermined by the Certificate of Service of the notice of that hearing. The Certificate of Service [#377] reflects that on June 9, 2007 the Bankruptcy Noticing Center mailed the notice of hearing to the Debtor at his address in Hollywood, Florida, which continues to be the Debtor's address of record. Moreover the flurry of telephone calls initiated by the Debtor on August 15 and 16, strongly suggest he was well aware of the hearing, especially since he acknowledges that the purpose of those calls was to determine the date and time of the hearing.
4. There is nothing in the Motion to suggest that the Debtor's failure to attend the August 16, 2007 was the result of excusable neglect. The Debtor was an attorney previously licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He is well aware of how to contact the Court or review the docket in this case if he was uncertain as to the date and time of the hearing.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is hereby DENIED.