1

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

Richmond Division 

In re: Darlene Denise Davis, Case No. 19-36077-KLP 

 Debtor Chapter 13 

MEMORANDUM ORDER 

Debtor Darlene Davis (the “Debtor”) filed this chapter 13 case on 

November 19, 2019. This case is the Debtor’s fourth bankruptcy case since 

2010. Case No. 10-38727-KLP was filed on December 23, 2010; the Debtor 

received a chapter 13 discharge on September 16, 2016. Case No. 17-35566-

KLP, a chapter 13 case, was filed on November 7, 2017, and was dismissed on 

August 30, 2018, for failure to make plan payments. Case No. 19-30056-KRH 

was filed on January 4, 2019, and was dismissed on March 22, 2019, upon the 

Debtor’s motion to withdraw her case. The Court granted the motion to 

withdraw but imposed a six-month bar on any future bankruptcy filing. 

Schedules in this case were due on December 4, 2019. The deadline 

was extended, upon the Debtor’s request, to December 13, 2019. On 

December 13, the Debtor filed a request that the deadline be extended again 

(the “Motion”), stating, among other things, that when she was at the clerk’s 

office to file the schedules, she needed her glasses to complete her incomplete 

documents and needed “a few more days.” On January 8, 2020, nearly four 

weeks after the request for “a few more days” was filed, the Debtor filed 

partially completed Schedules A through H, with a notation that they were 

“to be amended.” She also filed the required statement of financial affairs. 

Case 19-36077-KLP Doc 114 Filed 02/05/20 Entered 02/05/20 17:40:20 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 4
2

A hearing on the Motion was held on January 15, 2020, at which the 

court ruled that the Motion would be denied for reasons set forth in open 

court, and an order to that effect was entered on January 27, 2020. On that 

same day, the Debtor filed a motion to reconsider the Court’s ruling (the 

“Motion to Reconsider”). The Motion to Reconsider was timely filed, pursuant 

to Rule 9023 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 

9023. A hearing on the Motion to Reconsider was held on February 4, 2020. 

The federal procedures applicable to motions for amendment of court 

orders, often referred to as motions for reconsideration, are found in Federal 

Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9023, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023, which 

incorporates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. “While 

the Rule itself provides no standard for when a . . . court may grant such a 

motion, courts interpreting Rule 59(e) have recognized three grounds for 

amending an earlier judgment: (1) to accommodate an intervening change in 

controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to 

correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Hutchinson v. 

Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993). In the Eastern District of 

Virginia, this test has recently been interpreted as follows: 

Reconsideration may be appropriate where “the Court has 

patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside 

the adversarial issue presented to the Court by the parties, or 

has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.” Above 

the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 

(E.D.Va.1983). This Court has noted that this situation rarely 

arises, therefore the motion “should be equally rare.” Id. 

Finally, a party should not use a 59(e) motion simply “to ask the 

Case 19-36077-KLP Doc 114 Filed 02/05/20 Entered 02/05/20 17:40:20 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 4
3

Court to rethink what the Court had already thought through.” 

Id .; see also Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944, 953 (2d 

Cir.1964) (“[W]here litigants have once battled for the Court's 

decision, they should neither be required, nor without good 

reason permitted, to battle for it again.”); Cureton v. Cianbro 

Corp., No. JFM–06–2303, 2007 WL 397025, at * 1 (D. Md. Jan 

30, 2007) (finding that reconsideration is not permitted when 

parties are attempting to “raise arguments which could have 

been raised prior to the issuance of judgment,” nor to “enable a 

party to complete presenting his case after the court has ruled 

against him.” (quoting In re Reese, 91 F.3d 37, 39 (7th 

Cir.1996)). 

Puller v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc., No. 3:08-CV-813, 2009 WL 903303 (E.D. 

Va. Mar. 31, 2009). 

In this case, there has been no change in either the law or the facts 

that were before the Court at the time the Motion to extend the stay was 

denied. When questioned at the hearing, the Debtor could not offer any facts 

that had been unavailable to her at the time of the January 15, 2020, 

hearing, and the Court has been presented with no change in the law. 

The only remaining ground upon which the Debtor could base her 

motion to vacate dismissal is “to prevent manifest injustice.” The Eastern 

District of Virginia has found that “[r]econsideration is . . . appropriate when 

‘the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice.’” 

Hogge v. Stephens, Civil Action No. 3:09CV582, 2011 WL 4352268, at *3 (E.D. 

Va. Sept. 16, 2011). However, the Court finds no clear prior error. The Court 

also finds no manifest injustice in requiring the Debtor to adhere to the filing 

requirements of this Court. She has been given ample opportunities to 

comply, and she has failed to do so. The Court notes that this is not the 

Case 19-36077-KLP Doc 114 Filed 02/05/20 Entered 02/05/20 17:40:20 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 4
4

Debtor’s first bankruptcy case, and she should be familiar with the 

procedural requirements from both the Court’s instructions and her own 

prior experience. 

Therefore, for the reasons set forth herein and for the reasons 

announced in open court, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider is DENIED. 

Signed: February 5, 2020 

 /s/ Keith L. Phillips 

 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE 

Copies: 

Darlene Denise Davis 

5910 Chadwick Court 

Fredericksburg, VA 22407 

Suzanne E. Wade 

7202 Glen Forest Drive, Ste. 202 

Richmond, VA 23226 

Khalid Mahmood 

Law Office of Khalid Mahmood PC 

14631 Lee Highway 

Suite 112 

Centreville, VA 20121 

ENTERED ON DOCKET: February 5 2020

Case 19-36077-KLP Doc 114 Filed 02/05/20 Entered 02/05/20 17:40:20 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 4