Woide et al v. Federal National Mortgage Association
Filing
30
ORDER denying 28 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 3/13/2017. (VMF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
In Re:
CHARLES EDWARD WOIDE; and
SUSANNAH CLARE WOIDE,
Debtors.
Bankr. Case No. 6:10-bk-22841-KSJ
_________________________________
CHARLES EDWARD WOIDE; and
SUSANNAH CLARE WOIDE,
Appellants,
v.
Case No. 6:16-cv-1524-Orl-37
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,
Appellee.
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Appellants Charles Edward Woide and Susannah
Clare Woide’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order [Doc. 26] (Doc. 28), filed February 17,
2017.
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The genesis of this protracted bankruptcy appeal concerns the bankruptcy court’s
decision to reopen the underlying bankruptcy action to compel surrender of Appellants’
home. (See Doc. 10-4 (“Surrender Order”).) Appellants filed numerous motions
contesting the Surrender Order, all were denied. (See Docs. 10-16; 10-17; 11-17; 11-18.)
Thereafter,
Appellants
appealed
the
Surrender
Order
to
this
Court.
See
Case No. 6:16-cv-1484-Orl-37 (“Woide I”). In addition to their appeal in Woide I,
Appellants also appealed U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Karen S. Jennemann’s denial of their:
(1) emergency motion for stay pending appeal (Doc. 11-20 (“Order Denying Stay”)); and
(2) motion for reconsideration of an order vacating two prior bankruptcy court orders
(Doc. 11-19 (“Order Denying Reconsideration of Vacatur” collectively with the Order
Denying Stay “Jennemann Orders”)). The Jennemann Orders form the basis of the
present appeal. (See Doc. 1.)
On February 6, 2017, the Court affirmed the Jennemann Orders. (Doc. 26
(“Dismissal Order”).) In addition, the Court affirmed Bankruptcy Judge Jennemann’s
denial of the orders underlying the Order Denying Reconsideration of Vacatur, related
to the reconsideration of the Surrender Order (Docs. 11-17, 11-18 (collectively “Denial
Orders”)). 1 (See id.) Appellants now urge the Court to reconsider the Dismissal Order on
the basis of clear error or manifest injustice. (Doc. 28 (“Motion for Reconsideration”).
Appellees did not respond to the Motion for Reconsideration.
II.
STANDARDS
Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) is appropriate where
The Denial Orders were originally entered by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Arthur B. Briskman. Prior to the appeal in Woide I, Bankruptcy Judge Briskman vacated
the Denial Orders, recused himself, and reassigned the case to Bankruptcy Judge
Jennemann. (See Doc. 10-20.)
1
-2-
there is: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) newly discovered evidence; or
(3) clear error or manifest injustice. See Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A.,
153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994) (noting that courts have generally granted such relief
in these three circumstances). Rule 59, however, cannot be used to “relitigate old matters,
raise argument[,] or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of
judgment.” Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763
(11th Cir. 2005). Indeed, “[t]he Court’s reconsideration of a previous order is an
extraordinary remedy, to be employed sparingly.” Mannings v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough
Cty., 149 F.R.D. 235, 235 (M.D. Fla. 1993). “[T]he decision to grant such relief is committed
to the sound discretion of the district judge . . . .” Region 8 Forest Serv. Timber Purchasers
Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 806 (11th Cir. 1993).
III.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that that Court erred by: (1) finding that it lacked jurisdiction
over their appeal of the Order Denying Stay; and (2) finding that the bankruptcy court
had jurisdiction to enter the Denial Orders and the Jennemann Orders. (See Doc. 28,
pp. 3–5.)
First, Appellants contend that their Stay Motion sought injunctive relief. (Id. at 4.)
According to Appellants, the Court, thus, has jurisdiction over the Order Denying Stay,
as it is excepted from the final judgment rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). (Id.) Appellants
are wrong.
Section 1292(a)(1) provides that “the courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of
-3-
appeals from [i]nterlocutory orders of the district courts.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). But
Appellants cite no authority applying § 1292(a)(1) here—that is, to appeals from a
bankruptcy court to a district court, nor has the Court found any authority applying
§ 1292(a)(1) in this manner. Even if the Court entertained such an application, Appellants’
argument still fails, as their attempt to equate their Stay Motion with a motion for
injunctive relief is unavailing. This is so because an order that relates only to the conduct
or progress of litigation—such as the Order Denying Stay—is not considered an
injunction and is, therefore, not appealable under § 1292(a)(1). See Gulfstream Aerospace
Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 279, 287 (1988), superseded on other grounds by
9 U.S.C. § 16; see also Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 84 (1981) (explaining that
§ 1292(a)(1) was intended to carve out only a limited exception to the final judgment rule).
Finally, Appellants contend that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to enter
the Denial Orders and the Jennemann Orders. (Doc. 28, p. 3.) Attempting a “do over” on
this issue, Appellants essentially parrot the jurisdictional argument set forth in their
initial brief. (Compare id., with Doc. 19 pp. 13–14.) Having previously found that the
bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to enter such orders (see Doc. 26, pp. 8–11), the Court
finds that Appellants’ attempt to relitigate old matters is not a proper use of Rule 59.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Appellants Charles
Edward Woide and Susannah Clare Woide’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order
[Doc. 26] (Doc. 28) is DENIED.
-4-
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on March 13, 2017.
Copies:
Counsel of Record
Pro Se Parties
-5-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?