Case No. 08-30904 TEC, Adv. Proc. No. 08-3073 TC.United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California.
January 29, 2010
MEMORANDUM RE POST-TRIAL MOTIONS
THOMAS CARLSON, Bankruptcy Judge
On December 4, 2009, the court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s: (1) Motion for a New Trial and to Amend Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; (2) Motion for Post-Trial Discovery; and (3) Motion to Supplement the Record. Robin E. Foor appeared for Plaintiff. Roberto Ripamonti appeared for Defendant. Upon due consideration, and for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, the court hereby issues the following decision regarding those motions.
Page 2
The motion to amend findings of fact and conclusions of law should be granted to the extent that the court should strike from the Memorandum Decision re Phase II of Trial (docket no. 85) (the Decision) the text on page 3, line 27, beginning with “In so finding, I rely in part . . .” through line 10, page 4 of the Decision. The purpose of this amendment is to eliminate any reference in the Decision to four bank accounts (three at Gateway Bank, one at Washington Mutual) (collectively, the Accounts) that were not admitted into the record, and upon which the court erroneously relied in part in the Decision.
The motion for new trial should be denied, because striking all reference to the Accounts does not change alter the conclusions of law in the Decision. The material facts controlling the conclusions of law are: there was only one note for a small portion of the amount allegedly owed by Defendant to Plaintiff; there was no regular documentation for the rest of the amount allegedly owed; and Defendant paid a substantial amount of money to Plaintiff.
The motion for post-trial discovery should be denied, because the discovery in question should have been conducted before trial.
Defendant’s request for sanctions should denied be, because the motion to amend was substantially justified.