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. 

On December 2, 2019, creditor Fortune Investment Enterprises 

(‘Fortune Investments”)1 filed a motion (the “Motion”) requesting relief from 

the automatic stay of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). A hearing on 

the Motion was held on January 8, 2020, at which the Court ruled that the 

Motion would be granted. An order granting the Motion (the “Order”) was 

entered on February 4, 2020. On January 8, 2020, the Debtor filed an 

objection to the Court’s oral ruling, notwithstanding that the order 

1 Fortune Investments purchased property previously owned by the Debtor that was foreclosed 

upon prior to the Debtor’s filing this case. In the Motion, Fortune Investment seeks authority to exercise its 

rights to regain possession of the property at issue from the Debtor, who is still in possession of the 

property.

Case 19-36077-KLP Doc 134 Filed 02/13/20 Entered 02/13/20 07:50:43 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 5
2

documenting the ruling had not yet been entered. On January 27, 2020, the 

Debtor filed a document entitled “Supplemental Motion to Reconsider.” 

The Court considers the January 8 objection and the Supplemental 

Motion to Reconsider to be motions to reconsider pursuant to Rule 9023 of the 

Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and will address both together 

(jointly, the “Motions to Reconsider”).2 The Motions to Reconsider were timely 

filed, pursuant to Rule 9023 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, 

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023. A hearing on the Motions to Reconsider was held on 

February 4, 2020. The Debtor and Fortune Investment, through counsel, 

appeared at the hearing. 

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). The District Court for the 

Eastern District of Virginia has also stated that “a Rule 59(e) motion ‘may 

2 Because the Motions to Reconsider were filed prior to the lodging of the Debtor’s 

February 4, 2020, appeal of the Order, this Court retains jurisdiction to rule upon them. 

Case 19-36077-KLP Doc 134 Filed 02/13/20 Entered 02/13/20 07:50:43 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 5
3

not be used to relitigate old matters or to raise arguments or present 

evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.’” Irving 

v. United States, No. 3:04CR804-1-JRS, 2005 WL 8149015, at *3 (E.D. Va. 

June 13, 2005) (quoting Pacific Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 

396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998). 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 

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 did not offer any facts 

Case 19-36077-KLP Doc 134 Filed 02/13/20 Entered 02/13/20 07:50:43 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 5
4

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 and has 

been shown no instance of manifest injustice. The Debtor focused primarily 

upon her contention that the foreclosure on her home was improper, an 

argument that may be addressed in Fortune Investment’s possessory 

proceedings in state court. 

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

announced in open court,3 

IT IS ORDERED that the Motions to Reconsider are DENIED. 

Signed: February 12, 2020 

 /s/ Keith L. Phillips 

 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE 

Copies: 

Darlene Denise Davis 

5910 Chadwick Court 

Fredericksburg, VA 22407 

3 For the same reasons, the Court also finds that to the extent the provisions of Bankruptcy Rule

9024, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024, may be applicable, the Motions to Reconsider will not be granted thereupon.

ENTERED ON DOCKET: February 13 2020

Case 19-36077-KLP Doc 134 Filed 02/13/20 Entered 02/13/20 07:50:43 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 5
5

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 

Case 19-36077-KLP Doc 134 Filed 02/13/20 Entered 02/13/20 07:50:43 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 5