Breitburn Energy Partners LP, 16-11390

Dorothy Mae Cooley filed two proofs of claim (Nos. 2053 and 2405) in the Breitburn chapter 11 cases asserting royalty rights derived from her father Raymond Cooley.
The Court entered a Memorandum Decision (Aug. 18, 2017) and an Expunging Order (Sept. 11, 2017) disallowing and expunging those Cooley claims.
Cooley submitted a timely pro se filing objecting to the Expunging Order; the Court treated it as a motion for a new trial or to alter/amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (Bankr. R. 9023) or for reargument under Local Rule 9023-1.
Cooley’s arguments rested on two factual/legal premises: (1) the Michigan divorce court’s 1993 allocation of oil/gas/mineral royalties between Raymond (60%) and his then-spouse Jean (40%) was invalid or tainted by fraud/contempt; and (2) Raymond’s will/estate should have left his entire royalty share to Cooley alone, not divided among siblings.
Cooley sought essentially to collaterally attack Michigan court rulings and to relitigate state-court determinations rather than claim underpayment by the Debtors; the Court declined to revisit those state-court orders and denied her motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cooley’s submission warrants reargument/alteration of the Expunging Order	The Court overlooked controlling facts and law showing the Michigan divorce award and related probate disposition were invalid and that she is entitled to all royalties	Debtors argue the Expunging Order was correct; Cooley’s contentions attack state-court rulings and do not show error in the bankruptcy court’s decision	Denied — movant failed to show the Court overlooked controlling decisions/facts or clear error; reargument standards are strict
Whether the bankruptcy court may reexamine Michigan court divorce and probate determinations (collateral attack)	Cooley asks the Court to invalidate the Michigan divorce/allocation and Raymond’s will to award her sole entitlement	Debtors contend the bankruptcy court will not relitigate or collaterally attack final state-court orders; Cooley does not assert Debtors underpaid if state rulings stand	Denied — court will not look behind Michigan courts’ rulings; collateral attack improper in this proceeding

539 B.R. 66, In re Campbell (539 B.R. 66) (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (Rule 59(e) standards govern motions for reargument under local bankruptcy rules)
290 B.R. 55, In re Randall’s Island Family Golf Ctrs., Inc. (290 B.R. 55) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2003) (Rule 59(e) standards apply in bankruptcy reargument context)
46 F. Supp. 3d 310, Perez v. Progenic Pharm., Inc. (46 F. Supp. 3d 310) (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (movant must show court overlooked controlling decisions or facts or correct clear error to justify reconsideration)
332 B.R. 520, In re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd. (332 B.R. 520) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005) (reargument standards and need to prevent manifest injustice)
72 F. Supp. 2d 365, Griffin Indus., Inc. v. Petrojam, Ltd. (72 F. Supp. 2d 365) (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (criteria for reconsideration construed strictly to avoid repetitive arguments)
861 F. Supp. 2d 262, Liberty Media Corp. v. Vivendi Universal, S.A. (861 F. Supp. 2d 262) (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (reargument is not a vehicle for new arguments or rehearing on the merits)
156 F.3d 136, Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp. (156 F.3d 136) (2d Cir. 1998) (motion for reconsideration is not a second bite at the apple)