Bond Safeguard Insurance Company v. Ward et al

Filing 79

ORDER denying 77 Motion for reconsideration. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 8/31/2009. (ED)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
O RLANDO DIVISION BOND SAFEGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, -vsDIANE ELIZABETH WARD and JAMES ROBERT WARD, Defendants. ______________________________________ Case No. 6:09-cv-824-Orl-31KRS

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 77) filed by the Plaintiff, Bond Safeguard Insurance Company ("Bond Safeguard). The Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court's order (Doc. 75) granting the Trustee's motions to intervene and to transfer this matter to Bankruptcy Court. Bond Safeguard's primary argument is that its motion to amend its complaint (Doc. 60), which was pending at the time the Court granted the Trustee's motions, would have rendered moot the motion to transfer. However, that motion to amend the complaint was also pending when Bond Safeguard responded to the motion to transfer, and Bond Safeguard never argued that some or all of the bases for referring this matter could be eliminated via amendment. It is well-settled that parties cannot use a Rule 59(e) motion to raise new legal arguments which could and should have been made during the pendency of the underlying motion. Sanderlin v. Seminole Tribe of

Florida, 243 F.3d 1282, 1292 (11th Cir. 2001). Bond Safeguard offers no explanation for its failure to raise this argument in its response to the motion to transfer.1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 77) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on August 31, 2009.

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Party

The motion to amend was also silent on the issue of transfer, containing no argument that the proposed amendment would affect the transfer issue in any way.
-2 -

1