1989) (holding that a notation on the docket indicating court's decision, without a separate written order or judgment, did not start time for post-judgment motion). At the time of the bankruptcy court's ruling and until December 1, 2002, Rule 58 did not limit the time for filing a motion for reconsideration when no separate written judgment has been entered. 9021 (applying Rule 58 to bankruptcy proceedings). Here, no written judgment or order was entered and the motion for reconsideration was filed almost eight months after the bankruptcy court's oral ruling.įederal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 defines when entry of judgment has occurred. 9013-1(h) (stating that such motions must be filed within ten days after entry of judgment or order). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed within ten days after entry of judgment. 9023(applying Rule 59 to bankruptcy cases). 2 We raised the issue of the timeliness of the motion to reconsider sua sponte at oral argument, neither party having raised the issue in briefs or oral argument.Ī timely motion for reconsideration is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). On August 15, the Trustee filed a notice of appeal to the district court. On August 5, 2003, the court denied the motion. The Trustee explained that she had been waiting for the Landlord's attorney to prepare an order from which to seek reconsideration, but as no order had been submitted, the Trustee based the motion on the court's oral ruling.
On March 10, 2003, almost eight months after the court's ruling, the Trustee filed a motion for reconsideration in the bankruptcy court, arguing that the ruling excluding the letter of credit from the estate was manifest error. The bankruptcy court docket reflects the oral rulings made by the bankruptcy judge, but no written judgment or orders were ever entered. It issued no order or judgment on its rulings but directed counsel for the Landlord to prepare and present orders.
#Onecast inc trial
TIMELINESS OF THE MOTION TO RECONSIDERĪt the bankruptcy court trial in July 2002, that court ruled that "the letter of credit and its proceeds were never property of the estate." It went on to find that on the facts the Trustee was not entitled to any of the cash security deposit. A court abuses its discretion in denying a motion to reconsider if the underlying decision "involved a clear error of law." McDowell v. A bankruptcy court's denial of a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for abuse of discretion. "e review the bankruptcy court's decision independently and give no deference to the district court's determinations." Id. "We review de novo a district court's decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court." In re Dawson, 390 F.3d 1139, 1145 (9th Cir.2004). This appeal by the Landlord from the district court's order followed.
#Onecast inc full
The Trustee then appealed to the district court and that court reversed and remanded to the bankruptcy court to permit the Trustee to pursue recovery of damages up to the full amount of the security deposit, including the letter of credit.
The Trustee moved for reconsideration, which the bankruptcy court denied. The court ruled that to the extent the claim sought recovery of the portion of the security deposit secured by the letter of credit, the letter of credit was not property of the bankruptcy estate and therefore not within the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction. In an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court, the Trustee sought to recover the remaining security deposit.
The Landlord drew down the letter of credit and retained the proceeds as a security deposit. Nancy James was appointed bankruptcy trustee for the estate (Trustee) and rejected the lease. In November 2000, OneCast ceased paying rent and filed for bankruptcy. The lease was secured by a substantial security deposit comprised of cash and a letter of credit. (OneCast) held a lease for office space in a building owned by First Avenue West Building, LLC, later acquired by First West Building 00, LLC (the Landlord).
0 kommentar(er)
