.jpg)
Motion for Reconsideration standard
Also, as the rule states, the motion must be brought within 28 days
of the entry of the order/judgment you are seeking to reconsider.
On 12/14/2011 11:33 AM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>
>
> Alik,
>
> A motion for reconsideration is governed by FRBP 9023 (referring
> to FRCivP 59), not 9024 (referring to FRCivP 60)
>
> LBR 9013-4 is probably what you're looking for.
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
> means at
> http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
> office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information
> is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
> addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
> the contents of this message is prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
> imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
> contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not
> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
> purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code
> or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
> transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>
> On 12/14/2011 11:24 AM, Alik Segal wrote:
>> I dug a little deeper and I found that our LBR 1001-1 provides as
>> follows:
>>
>> LBR 1001-1. TITLE, APPLICATION, AND SCOPE OF RULES
>> (e) Procedure in Absence of Rule.
>> (1) A matter not specifically covered by these Local Bankruptcy
>> Rules may be
>> determined, if possible, by parallel or analogy to the
>> F.R.Civ.P., the FRBP, or the
>> District Court Rules.
>>
>> There is no LBR rule on motions for reconsideration, but there is
>> a LDCR rule on such motions. So rule 1001-1(e)(1) is triggered.
>> However, it appears that LDCR are not mandatory, but persuasive
>> authority. So presenting a motion for reconsideration in
>> bankruptcy court that is broader than LDCR 7-18 permit, may not
>> work if the court applies that rule, but it would not be a
>> sanctionable offense.
>>
>> Does this make sense?
>>
>> Alik
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Dennis McGoldrick
>> wrote:
>>
>> alik:
>> you answered your own question. Judge Neiter is a Bankruptcy
>> Judge. Bankruptcy judges follow the bankruptcy court rules,
>> not the district court rules.
>> d
>>
>> *From:* Alik Segal > >
>> *To:* CDCBAA Listserv > >
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 13, 2011 2:41 PM
>> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Motion for Reconsideration standard
>>
>> How strictly is District Court Local Rule 7-18 enforced in
>> bankruptcy court, and particularly by judge Nieter? It seems
>> to contradict Federal Rules 60.
>>
>>
>> The 9th Circuit has held that a motion for reconsideration
>> may be granted when "the district court
>>
>> * is presented with newly discovered evidence,
>> * committed clear error, or
>> * if there is an intervening change in the controlling law."
>>
>> Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir.
>> 2000).
>>
>> In addition, FRCP 60(b) (made applicable by FRBP 9024)
>> appears to introduce additional grounds:
>>
>> (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
>> (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
>> misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
>> (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
>>
>> However the Local Rule 7-18 of the US District Court for the
>> California Central District says
>>
>> A motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion
>> may be made only on the grounds of
>> (a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented
>> to the Court before such decision that in the exercise of
>> reasonable diligence could not have been known to the
>> party moving for reconsideration at the time of such decision, or
>> (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law
>> occurring after the time of such decision, or
>> (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material
>> facts presented to the Court before such decision.
>>
>> And Rutter Group, Cal. Prac. Guide Fed. Civ. Pro. Before
>> Trial Ch. 12:160.5 says in reference to District Court Local
>> Rule 7-18 that motion for reconsideration "grounds may be
>> further limited by local rules."
>>
>> How strictly is Rule 7-18 enforced in bankruptcy court, and
>> particularly by judge Nieter?
>>
>> --
>> Alik Segal
>> Alik.Segal@gmail.com
>> 310-362-6157
>> California Central District
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alik Segal
>> Alik.Segal@gmail.com
>> 310-362-6157
>> California Central District
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Alik,
A motion for reconsideration is governed by FRBP 9023 (referring to
FRCivP 59), not 9024 (referring to FRCivP 60)
LBR 9013-4 is probably what you're looking for.
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
means at
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I dug a little deeper and I found that our LBR 1001-1 provides as follows:
LBR 1001-1. TITLE, APPLICATION, AND SCOPE OF RULES
(e) Procedure in Absence of Rule.
(1) A matter not specifically covered by these Local Bankruptcy Rules may be
determined, if possible, by parallel or analogy to the F.R.Civ.P., the
FRBP, or the
District Court Rules.
There is no LBR rule on motions for reconsideration, but there is a LDCR
rule on such motions. So rule 1001-1(e)(1) is triggered. However, it
appears that LDCR are not mandatory, but persuasive authority. So
presenting a motion for reconsideration in bankruptcy court that is broader
than LDCR 7-18 permit, may not work if the court applies that rule, but it
would not be a sanctionable offense.
Does this make sense?
Alik
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Dennis McGoldrick wrote:
> **
>
>
> alik:
>
> you answered your own question. Judge Neiter is a Bankruptcy Judge.
> Bankruptcy judges follow the bankruptcy court rules, not the district court
> rules.
>
> d
>
> *From:* Alik Segal
> *To:* CDCBAA Listserv
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 13, 2011 2:41 PM
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Motion for Reconsideration standard
>
>
> How strictly is District Court Local Rule 7-18 enforced in bankruptcy
> court, and particularly by judge Nieter? It seems to contradict Federal
> Rules 60.
>
>
> The 9th Circuit has held that a motion for reconsideration may be granted
> when "the district court
>
> - is presented with newly discovered evidence,
> - committed clear error, or
> - if there is an intervening change in the controlling law."
>
> Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).
>
> In addition, FRCP 60(b) (made applicable by FRBP 9024) appears to
> introduce additional grounds:
>
> (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
> (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
> misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
> (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
>
> However the Local Rule 7-18 of the US District Court for the California
> Central District says
>
> A motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion may be made
> only on the grounds of
> (a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court
> before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not
> have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of such
> decision, or
> (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring
> after the time of such decision, or
> (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented
> to the Court before such decision.
>
> And Rutter Group, Cal. Prac. Guide Fed. Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch.
> 12:160.5 says in reference to District Court Local Rule 7-18 that motion
> for reconsideration "grounds may be further limited by local rules."
>
> How strictly is Rule 7-18 enforced in bankruptcy court, and particularly
> by judge Nieter?
>
> --
> Alik Segal
> Alik.Segal@gmail.com
> 310-362-6157
> California Central District
>
>
>
>
Alik Segal
Alik.Segal@gmail.com
310-362-6157
California Central District
I dug a little deeper and I found that our LBR 1001-1 provides as follows:LBR 1001-1. TITLE, APPLICATION, AND SCOPE OF RULES(e) Procedure in Absence of Rule.(1) A matter not specifically covered by these Local Bankruptcy Rules may be
determined, if possible, by parallel or analogy to the F.R.Civ.P., the FRBP, or theDistrict Court Rules.There is no LBR rule on motions for reconsideration, but there is a LDCR rule on such motions. So rule 1001-1(e)(1) is triggered. However, it appears that LDCR are not mandatory, but persuasive authority. So presenting a motion for reconsideration in bankruptcy court that is broader than LDCR 7-18 permit, may not work if the court applies that rule, but it would not be a sanctionable offense.
Does this make sense?AlikOn Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Dennis McGoldrick <easky1@yahoo.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
alik:
you answered your own question. Judge Neiter is a Bankruptcy Judge.t court rules.
d
________________________________
To: CDCBAA Listserv
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 2:41 PM
Subject: [cdcbaa] Motion for Reconsideration standard
How strictly is District Court Local Rule 7-18 enforced in bankruptcy court, and particularly by judge Nieter? It seems to contradict Federal Rules 60.
The 9th Circuit has held that a motion for reconsideration may be granted when "the district court
* is presented withnewly discovered evidence,
* committed clear error, or
* if there is an intervening change in the controlling law." Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).
In addition, FRCP 60(b)(made applicable by FRBP 9024) appears to introduce additional grounds:
(1)mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
However the Local Rule7-18of the US District Court for the California Central District says
A motion for reconsideration ofthe decision on any motion may be made only on the grounds of
the Court before such decision thatin the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been known to the partymoving for reconsideration at the time of such decision, or
ring after the time of such decision, or
ted to the Courtbefore such decision.
And Rutter Group, Cal. Prac. Guide Fed. Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 12:160.5 says in reference to District Court Local Rule 7-18 that motion for reconsideration "grounds may be further limited by localrules."
How strictly is Rule 7-18 enforced in bankruptcy court, and particularly by judge Nieter?
Alik Segal
Alik.Segal@gmail.com
310-362-6157
California Central District
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
How strictly is District Court Local Rule 7-18 enforced in bankruptcy
court, and particularly by judge Nieter? It seems to contradict Federal
Rules 60.
The 9th Circuit has held that a motion for reconsideration may be granted
when "the district court
- is presented with newly discovered evidence,
- committed clear error, or
- if there is an intervening change in the controlling law."
Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).
In addition, FRCP 60(b) (made applicable by FRBP 9024) appears to introduce
additional grounds:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
However the Local Rule 7-18 of the US District Court for the California
Central District says
A motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion may be made only
on the grounds of
(a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court
before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not
have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of such
decision, or
(b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after
the time of such decision, or
(c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented
to the Court before such decision.
And Rutter Group, Cal. Prac. Guide Fed. Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 12:160.5
says in reference to District Court Local Rule 7-18 that motion for
reconsideration "grounds may be further limited by local rules."
How strictly is Rule 7-18 enforced in bankruptcy court, and particularly by
judge Nieter?
Alik Segal
Alik.Segal@gmail.com
310-362-6157
California Central District
How strictly is District Court Local Rule 7-18 enforced in bankruptcy court, and particularly by judge Nieter? It seems to contradict Federal Rules 60.The 9th Circuit has held that a motion for reconsideration may be granted when "the district court
is presented withnewly discovered evidence,committed clear error, or
if there
is an intervening change in the controlling law." Kona
Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). In addition, FRCP 60(b)(made applicable by FRBP 9024) appears to introduce additional grounds: (1)mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect.(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
However the Local Rule
The post was migrated from Yahoo.