Motion for Reconsideration standard
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:18 pm
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.