In Re: James E. Baumann

Filing 23

ORDER denying Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc 19 ). Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 10/16/2015. (SN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

In Re:
JAMES E. BAUMANN,
Debtor.
Bankr. Case No. 6:14-bk-3297-ABB
_________________________________
JAMES E. BAUMANN,
Appellant,
v.

Case No. 6:15-cv-27-Orl-37

PNC BANK, N.A.; and
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Appellees,
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the following:
1. Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 19), filed September 4, 2015; and
2. Appellee, Bank of America, N.A.’s Limited Response to Appellant’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 20), filed September 15, 2015.
On August 21, 2015, this Court affirmed several of the Bankruptcy Court’s orders
in Case No. 6:14-bk-3297-ABB. (Doc. 18.) Appellant moves the Court to reconsider its
Order. (Doc. 19.) Defendant opposes. (Doc. 20.) The matter is ripe for the Court’s
adjudication.
Reconsideration

typically

requires:

(1)

newly

discovered

evidence;

(2) demonstrated clear error or manifest injustice; or (3) an intervening change in the

controlling law. Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1369
(S.D. Fla. 2002).
Appellant contends that reconsideration is warranted because: (1) the Court’s
decision was based on a “mistaken understanding of the facts and the law”; and
(2) because the Court’s decision included arguments not raised in Appellees’ answer
brief. (Doc. 19, pp. 1, 3.) Upon consideration, the Court rejects Appellant’s arguments.
Because Appellant has not introduced newly discovered evidence, demonstrated clear
error or manifest injustice, or highlighted a change in the law, reconsideration is not
warranted.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Appellant’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 19) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on October 16, 2015.

Copies:
Counsel of Record
Pro Se Party

2

3