Guffy v. Brown et al

Filing 152

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENIED 150 MOTION for Reconsideration of 117 MOTION for Summary Judgment Against Marshall Davis Brown, Jr. (Signed by Judge Nancy F Atlas) Parties notified.(sashabranner, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ELIZABETH M. GUFFY,
Plan Agent,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARSHALL DAVIS BROWN, JR.,
et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

October 11, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-0084

Bankruptcy Adversary No. 15-3229

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
By Memorandum and Order [Doc. # 146] entered September 11, 2017, the
Court denied the parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff Elizabeth M.
Guffy, Plan Agent, filed a Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. # 150] pursuant to
Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plan Agent seeks

reconsideration of the Court’s ruling that there were genuine issues of material fact
regarding whether Brown Medical Center, Inc. (“BMC”) received value in exchange
for the transfers to Defendant Marshall Davis Brown, Jr. and related law firms. The
Plan Agent also seeks summary judgment on discrete issues regarding the transfers
and BMC’s financial status at the time the transfers were made, specifically whether
BMC was insolvent or was engaged in business when its remaining assets were
unreasonably small.

P:\ORDERS\11-2016\0084MR.wpd

171011.1546

Rule 59(e) permits a litigant to file a motion to alter or amend a judgment. FED.
R. CIV. P. 59(e). Reconsideration of a judgment is an “extraordinary remedy that
should be used sparingly.” Waites v. Lee County, Miss., 498 F. App’x 401, 404 (5th
Cir. Nov. 26, 2012) (quoting Templet v. Hydrochem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir.
2004)). A motion for reconsideration “is not the proper vehicle for rehashing
evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before
the entry of judgment.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir.
2004); Knight v. Kellogg Brown & Root Inc., 2009 WL 1471788, at *6 (5th Cir. 2009)
(quoting Templet, 367 F.3d at 479). Instead, Rule 59(e) serves the narrow purpose of
allowing a party to bring errors or newly discovered evidence to the Court’s attention.
See In re Rodriguez, 695 F.3d 360, 371 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing In re Transtexas Gas
Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002)).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion for Reconsideration and the
applicable legal authorities. For the reasons stated in the September 11 Memorandum
and Order, the parties have presented evidence that raises genuine issues of material
fact regarding any value received by BMC in exchange for the transfers at issue.
Similarly, there are genuine issues of material fact regarding BMC’s financial status
at the time the transfers were made. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. # 150] is DENIED.

P:\ORDERS\11-2016\0084MR.wpd

171011.1546

2

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 11th day of October, 2017.

NANCY F. ATLAS
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

P:\ORDERS\11-2016\0084MR.wpd

171011.1546

3