Havens et al v. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLC
ORDER denying 293 Motion to Alter Judgment; denying 294 Motion for Hearing. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 10/3/2017. (adm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-173-SA
MARITIME COMMUNICATIONS/LAND MOBILE LLC
The Appellants in this case filed a number of appeals from the Bankruptcy Court regarding
certain executory contracts and licenses. The appeals were consolidated into this lead case. See
Now before the Court are two motions. First, the Appellee filed a Motion to Alter  an
earlier judgment entered by the Court. Second, Appellant Warren Havens now proceeding pro se
filed a Motion for Rehearing  under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8022 requesting
that this Court overturn its earlier decision dismissing this appeal.
In its Motion to Alter , the Appellee requests that the Court alter its earlier order to
make it clear that although Havens may proceed pro se on his personal behalf, he may not represent
the previously dismissed corporate Appellants. The Court’s earlier orders made it clear that the
corporate Appellants previously involved in this case are dismissed for failing to retain counsel
and for failing to comply with this Court’s orders. See Orders [290, 274]. The record is also clear
that individual Appellant Havens’ subsequent motion for rehearing now before the Court was made
on his personal behalf only and not on behalf of the now dismissed corporate Appellants. Although
Havens may proceed pro se, the corporate Appellants may not. See Orders [290, 274]. Because
the record and this Court’s orders on this issue are clear, the Court finds no need to modify its
earlier order as the Appellee requests.
As to Havens’ Motion for Rehearing , the Court finds that Havens failed to raise any
argument or evidence relevant to the substance of the Court’s decision. The Court previously
dismissed this appeal because Havens has no claim in the underlying case, no proof of adverse
pecuniary impact, and no contradictory evidence. Fortune Nat. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior,
806 F.3d 363, 366 (5th Cir. 2015); In re Coho Energy Inc., 395 F.3d 198, 202 (5th Cir. 2004).
Instead of addressing the substance of the Court’s ruling, Havens merely reiterates his previous
unavailing arguments, namely that he has a number of ancillary claims with the Federal
Communication Commission. The Court already fully addressed the merits of these arguments.
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8022 states, in relevant part: “The motion [for
rehearing] must state with particularity each point of law or fact that the movant believes the
district court [. . .] has overlooked or misapprehended and must argue in support of the motion.
FED. R. BANKR. P. 8022(a)(2). In the instant motion, Havens wholly fails to state with particularity
any point of law this Court overlooked or misapprehended, and fails to raise any question as to
“whether the Court would have reached a different result had it been aware of its mistaken use of
facts or law.” FED. R. BANKR. P. 8022(a)(2); In re Coleman, No. ADV 14-1046, 2015 WL
7101129, at *1 (E.D. La. Nov. 13, 2015) (citing In re Hessco Indus., Inc., 295 B.R. 372, 375 (9th
Cir. 2003). Because Havens’ motion is without merit and fails to comply with the requirements of
Rule 8022, it is denied.
For all these reasons, the Appellee’s Motion to Alter  is DENIED.
The Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing  is DENIED.
SO ORDERED on this, the 3rd day of October, 2017.
/s/ Sharion Aycock
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?