Del Bosque et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC et al

Filing 17

Memorandum Opinion and Order: The Court AFFIRMS the bankruptcy court's order denying Appellants' motion to reconsider dated 8/19/2015. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 3/31/2016) (axm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MARIO H. del BOSQUE and
SARA S. del BOSQUE,
Appellants/Debtors,
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC and
WELLS FARGO BANK NA,
Appellees/Creditors.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-3141-K

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is an appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order denying pro se
Appellants’ Motion to Revoke Order dated August 19, 2015. The bankruptcy court
construed the motion to revoke its previous order granting Appellees’ motion to
dismiss the case as a motion to reconsider under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b).

In his order denying Appellants’ motion to reconsider, Untied States

Bankruptcy Judge Harlin D. Hale concluded that pro se Appellants merely “raise[d]
points previously raised in the pleadings or at hearing, which does not satisfy the
standard to merit reconsideration” under Rule 60(b). Furthermore, Judge Hale found
that “the matter presented is not one for the bankruptcy court to resolve,” because
Appellants had been discharged, there was no longer a pending bankruptcy case, and

ORDER – PAGE 1

nothing in the record indicated the Appellees’ actions violated the discharge
injunction.
This Court reviews the bankruptcy court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion under
an abuse of discretion standard. See In re Abby Lines Inc., 180 Fed.Appx. 524, 525
(5th Cir. 2006)(citing In re Stangel, 68 F.3d 857, 859 (5th Cir. 1995)). “To satisfy
this stringent standard, the bankruptcy court’s denial of reconsideration ‘must have
been so unwarranted as to constitute an abuse of discretion.’” Waite v. Cage, Civ.
Action No. H-11-1067, 2011 WL 2118803, at *2 (quoting Abby Lines, 180 Fed.Appx.
at 526). After careful review of the bankruptcy court record, the briefs of the parties,
and the applicable law, the Court concludes that the bankruptcy court did not abuse
its discretion in denying Appellants’ motion to reconsider. See Templet v. HydroChem,
Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004)(“Reconsideration of a judgment after its
entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.”). The Court will
“liberally construe briefs of pro se litigants and apply less stringent standards to parties
proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel, [but] pro se parties must still
brief the issues and reasonably comply with” the applicable rules. Yang v. Holder,
664 F.3d 580, 589 (5th Cir. 2011).

Although Appellants clearly put forth much

effort in drafting their filings, these documents are nevertheless very difficult to
decipher. Liberally construing Appellants’ brief and response, the Court concludes

ORDER – PAGE 2

Appellants merely rehash their same arguments presented to the bankruptcy court in
previous pleadings or hearings, related mostly, if not entirely, to the claims in their
complaint and the briefing and hearing on Appellees’ motion to dismiss which was
granted. Appellants’ appealed the bankruptcy court’s order denying their motion to
reconsider; they did not appeal the bankruptcy court’s order which dismissed their
case. In the record before the Court, Appellants presented no evidence of mistake,
fraud, newly discovered evidence, or other cause justifying relied under Rule 60(b).
See Templet, 367 F.3d at 478 (“[S]uch a motion is not the proper vehicle for rehashing
evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before
the entry of judgment.”). This Court concludes the bankruptcy court did not abuse
its discretion in denying Appellants’ motion to reconsider. Accordingly, the Court
AFFIRMS the bankruptcy court’s order denying Appellants’ motion to reconsider
dated August 19, 2015. The Clerk is hereby directed to “prepare, sign and enter the
judgment” pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 8016(a).
SO ORDERED.
Signed March 31st, 2016.
______________________________________
ED KINKEADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER – PAGE 3