585 B.R. 916
Bankr. M.D. Ala.2018Background
- This is a bankruptcy core proceeding; the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). The order is final.
- Plaintiff (unspecified) obtained summary judgment against defendant Audientis.
- Audientis moved to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) (made applicable by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023), attaching an affidavit of its sole member (William Pergolini) and a post-judgment list of services allegedly provided to SpecAlloy.
- Audientis argued the affidavit and list were "new" evidence warranting reconsideration.
- The court found the affidavit and list were available before judgment (Pergolini had been deposed) and that Audientis failed to explain why they were not produced earlier.
- The court treated Rule 59(e) relief as extraordinary and denied Audientis’ motion because the evidence was not "newly discovered," and no intervening change in law or manifest injustice was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court should alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) | Summary judgment should stand; no basis to reopen | New affidavit and list of services are newly discovered evidence justifying reversal | Denied — evidence not newly discovered; no change in law or manifest injustice |
| Whether the submitted affidavit/list constitute "newly discovered" evidence | Evidence in record already supported judgment | Affidavit/list were not previously in the record and are "new" | Denied — information was reasonably discoverable pre-judgment (Pergolini was deposed) |
| Whether defendant exercised due diligence in discovery | Plaintiff contends defendant failed to carry burden to prove new evidence | Defendant asserts diligent search post-judgment and that evidence warrants reconsideration | Denied — defendant did not show diligent efforts before judgment; Rule 59(e) cannot relitigate prior matters |
| Whether Rule 59(e) relief is appropriate absent intervening change in law or clear error | No intervening change; summary judgment was proper | Relief should be granted to prevent injustice based on new evidence | Denied — no intervening change in law or need to correct clear error or manifest injustice |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Danley, 540 B.R. 468 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2015) (standards for Rule 59(e) in bankruptcy context)
- In re Muhammad, 536 B.R. 469 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2015) (same)
- Eglin Fed. Credit Union v. Horlacher (In re Horlacher), 389 B.R. 257 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 2008) (treatment of Rule 59(e) reconsideration)
- Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2007) (discussing Rule 59(e) standards)
- Emery v. Am. Airlines, Inc., [citation="647 F. App'x 968"] (11th Cir. 2016) (Rule 59(e) cannot relitigate matters that could have been raised earlier)
- Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int'l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2010) (limitations on Rule 59(e) to raise previously available arguments)
- Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2004) (Rule 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly)
- Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir. 1990) (Rule 59(e) not for rehashing evidence or theories)
- Chery v. Bowman, 901 F.2d 1053 (11th Cir. 1990) (movant must show evidence is newly discovered or that diligent efforts failed to uncover it)