Opinion ID: 3036337
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: timeliness of the motion to

Text: RECONSIDER At 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. It issued no order or judgment on its rulings but directed counsel for the Landlord to prepare and present orders.1 This was never done. The bankruptcy court docket reflects the oral rulings made by the bankruptcy judge, but no written judgment or orders were ever entered. 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 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 August 5, 2003, the court denied the motion. On August 15, the Trustee filed a notice of appeal to the district court.2 We 1 The Western District of Washington’s Bankruptcy Local Rule 9021-1 provides that “[u]nless the court directs otherwise, all orders, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and judgments shall be prepared by the prevailing party.” 2 The Trustee appealed both the July 2002 ruling and the denial of the motion to reconsider to the district court. The district court found that it lacked jurisdiction over the July 2002 ruling because no written order setting forth the judgment had been entered. The Trustee does not challenge that determination on appeal to this Court. Accordingly, we limit our analysis to the motion to reconsider, which formed the basis for the district court’s decision. 1970 IN RE: ONECAST MEDIA 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. [1] A timely motion for reconsideration is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Bestran Corp. v. Eagle Comtronics, Inc., 720 F.2d 1019, 1019 (9th Cir. 1983); see also FED. R. BANKR. P. 9023 (applying Rule 59 to bankruptcy cases). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed within ten days after entry of judgment. See also W.D. WASH. BANKR. R. 9013-1(h) (stating that such motions must be filed within ten days after entry of judgment or order). 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. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 defines when entry of judgment has occurred. See also FED. R. BANKR. P. 9021 (applying Rule 58 to bankruptcy proceedings). 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. See Carter v. Beverly Hills Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 884 F.2d 1186, 1189-90 (9th Cir. 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). On December 1, 2002, an amendment of Rule 58 took effect, providing that where no separate written judgment was entered, the entry of judgment would occur “when 150 days have run from entry in the civil docket under Rule 79(a).” FED. R. CIV. P. 58(b)(2)(B). The court’s ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over the letter of credit claim was entered on the bankruptcy docket on August 6, 2002. The motion to reconsider, filed March 10, 2003, was therefore untimely under the amended Rule. The order of the Supreme Court amending Rule 58 states the amendment “shall govern in all proceedings in civil cases IN RE: ONECAST MEDIA 1971 thereafter commenced and, insofar as just and practicable, all proceedings then pending.” 207 F.R.D. 50, 53 (2002). Ordinarily, we would proceed to determine whether application of the amended Rule to this case is just and practicable. See In re Kaypro, 218 F.3d at 1077; Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 459-60 (9th Cir. 1995).3 [2] Here, however, there is no need to consider the application of Rule 58 as amended to this case. Under Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004), time constraints contained in the bankruptcy rules are claim-processing rules and do not affect federal subject matter jurisdiction. In Kontrick, a creditor failed to object to the debtor’s discharge within the sixty-day time limit set by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4004. Id. at 456-57. Rule 9006 allows extension of the Rule 4004 time limit only to the extent permitted by Rule 4004. When the creditor in Kontrick did raise an objection, the debtor responded by addressing the merits of the objection, and did not raise the timeliness issue until later. Id. at 449, 451. The Court held that the rule limiting the time for filing an objection was a claim-processing rule that did not implicate subject matter jurisdiction and that the debtor’s failure to timely assert it resulted in a forfeiture under the rule.4 Id. at 456-59. Rule 59 is as much a claim-processing rule as the rule at issue in Kontrick. See also Eberhart v. United States, 126 S. Ct. 403, 407 (2005) (holding that the time limit to move for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b)(2) is claim-processing rule forfeited by government’s failure to timely raise it); Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. Datanet 3 In Ford v. MCI Communications Corp. Health & Welfare Plan, 399 F.3d 1076, 1080-81 (9th Cir. 2005), the court, without discussion, applied the 150-day rule to a pending case and found that the notice of appeal had been timely filed. 4 “Characteristically, a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be expanded to account for the parties’ litigation conduct; a claim-processing rule, on the other hand, even if unalterable on a party’s application, can nonetheless be forfeited if the party asserting the rule waits too long to raise the point.” Kontrick, 540 U.S. at 456. 1972 IN RE: ONECAST MEDIA Eng’g, Inc., 369 F.3d 385, 396 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (finding that Rule 11’s safe harbor provisions are claimprocessing rules that are forfeited if not timely raised). [3] As neither the amendment to Rule 58, nor any timeliness challenge to the motion for reconsideration was raised by the Landlord in its briefs, we consider the timeliness issue forfeited.