Havens et al v. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLC

Filing 122

ORDER denying 115 Motion to Alter Judgment; denying 116 Motion for Rehearing. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 10/3/2017. (dbm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
WARREN HAVENS

APPELLANT

V.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-180-SA

MARITIME COMMUNICATIONS/LAND MOBILE LLC

APPELLEE

ORDER
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 Order [66].
Now before the Court are two motions. First, the Appellee filed a Motion to Alter [115]
an earlier judgment entered by the Court. Second, Appellant Warren Havens now proceeding pro
se filed a Motion for Rehearing [116] under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8022
requesting that this Court overturn its earlier decision dismissing this appeal.
In its Motion to Alter [115], 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 [112, 96]. 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
[112, 96]. 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 [116], 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 [115] is DENIED.
The Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing [116] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED on this, the 3rd day of October, 2017.
/s/ Sharion Aycock
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2