Kapila v. Davis, Graham & Stubbs LLP et al

Filing 34

ORDER denying 21 Motion for Reconsideration re 20 Bankruptcy Order on Motion (Complaint) to Withdraw Reference,,. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 2/20/2018. (ls)

United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
Soneet R. Kapila, Plaintiff,
v.
Davis, Graham & Stubbs LLP and
S. Lee Terry, Defendants.

)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 15-61016-Civ-Scola
)
)

Order on Motion for Reconsideration
The Plaintiff Soneet R. Kapila, as the liquidating trustee of the SMF Energy
Liquidating Trust, asks the Court to reconsider its order granting summary
judgment in favor of the Defendants Davis, Graham & Stubbs LLP and S. Lee
Terry (the “Order”) (ECF No. 20). For the reasons that follow, the Trustee’s
motion (ECF No. 21) is denied.
Rule 59(e) permits a motion to alter or amend a judgment. “The only
grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest
errors of law or fact. A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to relitigate old matters,
raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the
entry of judgment.” Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007)
(internal quotations omitted). The decision to grant or deny a motion for
reconsideration is committed to the district court’s sound discretion. See
Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1023-24 (11th Cir. 2000) (reviewing
reconsideration decision for abuse of discretion). Reconsideration is appropriate
only in very limited circumstances, such as where “the Court has patently
misunderstood a party, where there is an intervening change in controlling law
or the facts of a case, or where there is manifest injustice.” See Vila v. Padron,
2005 WL 6104075, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2005) (Altonaga, J.). “Such problems
rarely arise and the motion to reconsider should be equally rare.” See id.
(citation omitted). In order to obtain reconsideration, “the party must do more
than simply restate its previous arguments, and any arguments the party failed
to raise in the earlier motion will be deemed waived.” See id. “[A] motion for
reconsideration should not be used as a vehicle to present authorities available
at the time of the first decision or to reiterate arguments previously
made.” Z.K. Marine Inc. v. M/V Archigetis, 808 F. Supp. 1561, 1563 (S.D. Fla.
1992) (Hoeveler, J.).
The Court granted partial summary judgment in the Defendants’ favor
based on the application of issue preclusion and judicial admissions and that

the Defendants are therefore entitled to rely upon the in pari delicto doctrine as a
bar to the Trustee’s claim in this case. The Trustee submits that the Court’s
order is based on a manifest error of law or fact and should be vacated upon
reconsideration. (Pl.’s Mot. at 5.) The Trustee’s argument, however, merely
rehashes issues that the Court has already considered. The Trustee disagrees
with the Court’s evaluation of the facts, as well as the Court’s application of the
relevant law to these facts. For example, the Trustee quarrels with the Court’s
application and analysis of In re Gosman, 382 B.R. 826 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (Gold,
J.). The Court relied on the case to support the notion that a trustee may not
take different factual positions in separate adversarial proceedings within an
overarching bankruptcy proceeding. Although the Trustee maintains that In re
Gosman does not apply and disagrees with the Court’s interpretation of the outer
bounds of Rule 8, the Trustee’s criticisms of the Court’s reasoning, even if valid,
merely seek to relitigate issues that have already been decided. The Trustee’s
motion is therefore not well-taken.
Accordingly, the Court denies the Trustee’s motion for reconsideration
(ECF No. 21). This case shall remain closed.
Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, on February 20, 2018.
________________________________
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge