United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

In re: 

Josue Cepero and Leticia Cepero, 

Debtors.

Hammocks Community Association 

Inc., and Marglli Gallego, Appellants,

v.

Josue Cepero and Leticia Cepero, 

Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 22-22686-CivScola 

Bankruptcy Case No. 17-20358-

LMI

Order Denying Appellees’ Motion to Alter or Amend 

the Amended Judgment

This matter is before the Court on the Appellees’ motion to alter or 

amend the Court’s August 17, 2023 amended judgment. (ECF No. 48.) The 

Appellants responded (ECF No. 49) and the Appellees filed a reply. (ECF No. 

50.) The Court has reviewed the briefing and is otherwise fully advised. The 

Court denies the motion. (ECF No. 48.)

The Court’s August 17, 2023 amended judgment clarified that the 

Court’s June 23, 2023 order had reversed the Bankruptcy Court on the issue 

of Appellant Hammocks’s liability for punitive damages, remanding for further 

proceedings regarding that issue only. (See Order, ECF No. 46 at 2-3.) The 

Appellees now request that the Court alter or amend the August 17 judgment

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to hold that Hammocks failed 

to preserve the punitive damages issue for appeal and eliminate the need for a 

remand. (Appellees’ Mot., ECF No. 48 at 8.) The Appellees make this argument 

without explaining how Rule 59 now applies despite the Court’s order agreeing 

with the Appellees that Rule 59 does not govern appeals to a district court from 

a bankruptcy court and entering judgment under Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 6. (See Orders, ECF Nos. 46-47.)

Even if Rule 59 (or Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9023) would 

somehow apply, “[t]he only grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newlydiscovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact. A Rule 59(e) motion 

cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence 

that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Arthur v. King, 500 

Case 1:22-cv-22686-RNS Document 51 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2023 Page 1 of 2
F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations omitted). The Appellees 

have already challenged the Court’s holding on punitive damages in their June 

26, 2023 motion for rehearing (ECF No. 37), which the Court denied. (ECF No. 

38.) They do not present either newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of 

law or fact here. Instead, the Appellees repetitively argue that Hammocks failed 

to preserve the issue of punitive damages in the proceedings below. (Mot., ECF 

No. 48 at 7-8.) As the Court already stated in its July 20, 2023 order, the 

Appellees’ motion “wrongly attempts to relitigate the Court’s decision in its 

order and opinion,” and altering or amending the judgment is therefore 

unjustified. (ECF No. 38 at 2.) The Court forewarns the Appellees that the filing 

of frivolous motions may incur sanctions.

For the reasons stated above, the Court denies the Appellees’ motion to 

alter or amend the Court’s August 17, 2023 amended judgment. (ECF No. 48.) 

Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, on October 3, 2023.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:22-cv-22686-RNS Document 51 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2023 Page 2 of 2