Mitelhaus
Mitelhaus v. Ramey (In re Ramey)
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Robles, J.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AFTER TRIAL AND JUDGMENT (D.E. 108)
On March 8, 2012, Robert Mitelhaus (“Plaintiff’) initiated an adversary proceeding by filing a complaint seeking a *779 determination that certain debts be held non-dischargeable as to Roxanna Ramey (“Ramey”) and Mark Jenkins (“Jenkins”) (collectively, the “Debtors” or “Defendants”). (D.E. 1.) The Court conducted a three day trial on October 2, 15, and 31, 2013. On February 4, 2014, the Court took the matter under submission. On April 2, 2014, the Court entered a Memorandum of Decision and Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff. (D.E. 104 and 105.)
On April 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant “Motion to Alter or Amend ‘Memorandum of Decision After Trial’ and ‘Judgment’” (“Motion”). (D.E. 108.) Plaintiff brings the Motion pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 59 (“Rule 59”), made applicable to this bankruptcy case pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9023 (“Rule 9023”). Plaintiff asserts that in considering a Rule 59(e) motion, a court is not limited to the four typical grounds for which reconsideration may be granted 1 , but may also consider whether amendment is necessary as…