Rent-A-Center East, Inc. v. Leonard

Filing 23

ORDER denying 17 Motion for rehearing (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 8/27/2014. (PJM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 13-2496(DSD)
In re:

BKY Case No.: 11-42325

WEB2B Payment Solutions, Inc.

Chapter 7

Debtor.
Rent-A-Center East, Inc.,
Appellant,
ORDER

v.
Brian F. Leonard, Trustee,
Appellee.

This matter is before the court upon the motion by appellant
Rent-A-Center East, Inc. (RAC) for rehearing on the court’s July
18, 2014, order affirming the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary
judgment to appellee Brian F. Leonard.

Based on a review of the

file, record and proceedings herein, and for the following reasons,
the court denies the motion.
The background of this action is fully set out in the court’s
prior order, and the court recites only those facts necessary for
disposition of the instant motion.

On March 19, 2007, RAC entered

into a client agreement (Agreement) with debtor Web2B Payment
Solutions, Inc. (Web2B), pursuant to which Web2B processed checks
received from RAC’s clients.

To facilitate the Agreement, Web2B

established an account at North American Banking Company (NABC),
through which it “accept[ed] electronic credit and debit entries
for” RAC.

Compl. Ex. A, at 1.

In 2011, Web2B filed for bankruptcy.

The bankruptcy court

appointed Leonard as trustee of the estate (trustee).

Thereafter,

NABC turned over approximately $933,000, held in various Web2B
accounts, to the trustee.

On February 24, 2012, RAC filed an

adversary proceeding against the trustee, claiming that $801,378.76
of the NABC funds belong to RAC.
for summary judgment.

RAC and the trustee each moved

The bankruptcy court granted the trustee’s

motion for summary judgment and entered final judgment.
Nos. 1-8, 1-9.

See ECF

RAC appealed and the court affirmed, finding, in

relevant part, that RAC had no basis to challenge Web2B’s dominion
over the funds because it endorsed the checks to Web2B.
15, at 11.

ECF No.

RAC now argues that the court erred in making that

determination.
Where, as here, the court is acting as an appellate court in
a bankruptcy case, Rule 8015 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure “provides the sole mechanism for filing a motion for
rehearing.”

In re Spiegel, Inc., Nos. 03-11540, 06-13477, 2007 WL

2609966, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2007).

Although Rule 8015 does

not include a standard of review, the advisory committee notes
“direct attention to Rule 40 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.” Id. (citations and internal quotations marks omitted).

2

Rule 40 requires the movant to “state with particularity each point
of law or fact that [it] believes the court has overlooked or
misapprehended and [to] argue in support of the petition.” Fed. R.
App. P. 40(a)(2).
The purpose of a motion for rehearing is “to direct the
court’s attention to some material matter of law or fact which it
has overlooked in deciding the case, and which, had it been given
consideration,
result.”

would

probably

have

brought

about

a

different

New York v. Sokol, No. 94-7392, 1996 WL 428381, at *4

(S.D.N.Y. Jul. 31, 1996).

Thus, “[t]he function of a petition for

rehearing is not to permit the petitioner to reargue his case; to
attempt to do so would be an abuse of the privilege of making such
a petition.”

Id. “[N]either new evidence nor new arguments are

considered valid bases for Rule 8015 relief.”
In re Spiegel, 2007 WL 2609966, at *2.
RAC argues that the court misconstrued the record when it
concluded that RAC endorsed the checks to Web2B.
11.

ECF No. 15, at

This argument is an exercise in form over substance.

As the

order and record make clear, the checks at issue were endorsed to
Web2B with express authorization from RAC.

See id. at 2.

Whether

RAC personally endorsed the checks or allowed others to do so is
immaterial to the court’s ruling.
warranted.

3

As a result, rehearing is not

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that appellant’s motion for
rehearing [ECF No. 17] is denied.
Dated:

August 27, 2014
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

4