Eric Lester Leinbach, 5:14-bk-04040

JPMorgan Chase filed a Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay against debtor Eric Leinbach; the court denied the second motion because JPMorgan failed to present evidence of its standing at the hearing.
At the hearing, Chase proffered only the allegations in its motion and produced no supporting evidence of standing.
Chase then filed a Motion for Reconsideration under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023 (applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 59), asserting inadvertence or mistake in failing to provide a basis for standing.
The Motion for Reconsideration relied solely on paragraph 10 alleging inadvertence; it did not assert newly discovered evidence, intervening law, or clear error of law or fact.
The bankruptcy court applied Third Circuit standards for Rule 59(e) motions and concluded that failure to present evidence at the hearing due to inadvertence or mistake does not warrant reconsideration.
The court denied JPMorgan’s Motion for Reconsideration and entered an order to that effect on October 19, 2015.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a Rule 9023/59(e) reconsideration is warranted for failure to present standing evidence at the underlying hearing	Chase: inadvertence/mistake caused failure to present evidence; requests reconsideration	Debtor: earlier denial was proper; no new evidence or controlling-law change	Court: Denied — inadvertence/mistake alone is insufficient for Rule 59(e) relief
Whether a motion to reconsider may raise arguments or evidence that could have been presented earlier	Chase: sought reconsideration to cure omission	Debtor: reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate or present previously available evidence	Court: Reiterated that Rule 59(e) is not for reargument or presenting evidence that could have been offered earlier
Proper standards governing reconsideration under Bankruptcy Rule 9023	Chase: invoked Rule 9023 to seek relief	Debtor: Rule 9023/59(e) requires one of: intervening law, new evidence, or clear error	Court: Applied Third Circuit test (intervening change, new evidence, clear error/manifest injustice) and found none
Whether the absence of standing evidence at hearing invalidated the underlying denial procedure	Chase: sought a second chance to supply standing proof	Debtor: procedural record lacked support for Chase’s standing at hearing	Court: Under facts, denial was appropriate; reconsideration not justified

Prudential Ins. Co. v. Farley (In re Farley), 158 B.R. 48 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (Bankruptcy Rule 9023 makes Rule 59 applicable in bankruptcy)
McDowell Oil Serv., Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 817 F. Supp. 538 (M.D. Pa. 1993) (Rule 59(e) motion must correct manifest errors or present new evidence)
Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906 (3d Cir. 1985) (purpose of reconsideration is to correct manifest errors or present newly discovered evidence)
Max's Seafood Café by Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (grounds for altering judgment: intervening law, new evidence, or need to correct clear error/manifest injustice)
North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194 (3d Cir. 1995) (standards for reconsideration under Rule 59)
Ogden v. Keystone Residence, 226 F. Supp. 2d 588 (M.D. Pa. 2002) (reconsideration not for reargument or relitigation)