In re Bruetman, Bankruptcy No. 99 B 09107. Adversary No. 99 A 00811.

• Decision Date: 08 March 2001
• Docket Number: Bankruptcy No. 99 B 09107. Adversary No. 99 A 00811.
• Citation: 259 BR 672
• Parties: In re Martin BRUETMAN, Debtor. Diego Herbstein, Plaintiff, v. Martin Bruetman, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Illinois

259 B.R. 672 (2001)

In re Martin BRUETMAN, Debtor Diego Herbstein, Plaintiff, v. Martin Bruetman, Defendant.

Bankruptcy No. 99 B 09107. Adversary No. 99 A 00811.

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

March 8, 2001.

Richard Steck, Chicago, IL, for plaintiff.

Martin E. Bruetman, Chicago, IL, pro se.

MEMORANDUM OPINION DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

JACK B. SCHMETTERER, Bankruptcy Judge.

Pursuant to Memorandum Opinion entered December 12, 2000, rulings were made allowing Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts I and II and denying Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment on those Counts. This Adversary proceeding was set December 27, 2000 for Plaintiff to tender draft judgment orders.

On December 21, 2000, Defendant (who is a non-lawyer appearing pro se) filed his "Motion Requesting Reconsideration" of the Order of December 12, 2000 which had allowed summary judgment for Plaintiff, but had not yet entered a judgment.

The Court announced from the bench that the original Opinion will be withdrawn to correct some factual misstatements, and that Plaintiff's Motion would be allowed to stand as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 9023 Fed.R.Bankr.P. (adopting Rule 59 Fed.R.Civ.P.) and that Defendant's said Motion would be deemed to be filed upon actual entry of any judgments. The parties were invited to brief the "reconsideration" request while the court awaited tender of draft judgment orders, and both sides ultimately announced in open court that they rely on filings by them on this Motion and do not seek to make further filings.

To correct inaccuracies pointed out by Defendant, the original Memorandum Opinion was withdrawn by separate Order entered today, and an Amended Memorandum Opinion has now been entered. Pursuant thereto, a new Order was entered allowing summary judgment for Plaintiff on Counts I and II and denying summary judgment on Defendant's cross-motion on those counts. Separate final judgments were then entered today in favor of Plaintiff on those counts.

Having reviewed Defendant's Motion and argument contained therein, and having also reviewed the Plaintiff's response, the Defendant's Motion to "reconsider" treated as motion to alter or amend the two judgments entered today will by separate Order be denied.

DISCUSSION

Some minor factual misstatements were found in the original Opinion that are now corrected in the Amended Opinion. They did not in any event affect the result. Dr. Bruetman has not demonstrated errors in fact or law which warrant the altering or amendment of the judgments now entered.

A motion under Rule 59 Fed. R.Civ.P. may be granted only if there has been a mistake of law or fact, or where there is newly discovered evidence not previously available. Gendron v. United States, 154 F.3d 672, 674 (7th Cir.1998). That Rule permits a party to bring to attention of the trial court factual and legal errors that may change the outcome so they can be corrected. It does not allow a party to introduce new evidence earlier available, or advance arguments that could and should have been presented prior to the judgment. Popovits v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 185 F.3d 726 (7th Cir.1999).

The Bruetman motion primarily disputed the procedure and analysis followed by this Court in reaching its decision, but did not demonstrate error of fact or law. While he pointed out two inconsequential misstatements in the original Opinion, now corrected in the Amended Opinion, those in no way warranted changing the result.

...