United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
In re PAULINE A. BRADY, et al., Debtors,
HON. CHARLES E. RENDLEN III,  Appellee. ROSS H. BRIGGS Appellant, In re Long No. 4:18-cv-01441-JAR In re Beard No. 4:18-cv-01442-JAR In re Moore No. 4:18-cv-01443-JAR In re Logan No. 4:18-cv-01444-JAR In re Stewart No. 4:18-cv-01445-JAR In re Shields No. 4:18-cv-01446-JAR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case, the Court entered its Memorandum & Order and
Judgment on September 26, 2019 thereafter the case was
closed. Now before the Court is Appellant Ross Briggs's
motion to reconsider and his corrected motion to reconsider.
(Doc. Nos. 33, 34). For the following reasons, the Court will
deny the motions.
cites to no Federal Rule in support of the motions, and in
fact, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for
motions for reconsideration. Level 3 Comm., LLC v.
Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 2019 WL 316569 at *3 (E. D.
Mo. Jan. 24, 2019). However, a district court has the
authority to reconsider a non-final order under Fed.R.Civ.P.
54(b), as well as "inherent power to reconsider and
modify an interlocutory order any time prior to the entry of
judgment." Level 3 Comm. (quoting K, C.
1986 Ltd. P'ship Reade Mfg., 472 F.3d 1009, 1017
(8th Cir. 2007)).
Briggs argues that the Court did not give him the opportunity
to present oral argument or submit additional evidence in
support of his appeal. He files as an exhibit an Order dated
August 5, 2014, in which another bankruptcy court judge
directed Briggs to transfer certain funds to James Robinson.
Briggs argues that Judge Rendlen improperly cited this
transfer of funds as evidence of wrongdoing without
considering that the transfer was the result of a court
order. Briggs maintains that he should have been given the
opportunity to fully obtain and present this and other
evidence before the Court ruled on his appeal.
the outset, the Court notes that although oral argument is
granted under many circumstances, it was unnecessary in this
case. The record was lengthy and complete, and the parties
fully briefed the issues pertinent for the Court's
consideration. Thus, the lack of a formal hearing and oral
argument in this case does not provide a basis for
reconsidering the Court's September 26, 2019 Order.
the Court concludes that the August 5, 2014 Order is not a
proper basis for a motion for reconsideration. "A motion
for reconsideration is not a vehicle to identify facts or
legal arguments that could have been, but were not, raised at
the time the relevant motion was pending."
Julianello v. K-VPharm. Co., 791 F.3d915, 923 (8th
Cir. 2015) (citationomitted). Nor may a motion for
reconsideration serve to introduce evidence that the movant
could have produced before the district court decided the
prior motion. Id. A district court does not abuse
its discretion in denying a motion for reconsideration used
for such an "impermissible purpose." Id.
review of the entire record, the Court is not persuaded that
Briggs had no ability-at any level-to demonstrate that the
transfer of funds was proper and required by Bankruptcy Court
order. To the contrary, Briggs had ample opportunity to bring
the August 5, 2014 Order to the attention of Judge Rendlen.
Similarly, Briggs could have included the August 5, 2014 as
an exhibit to his briefing on appeal. However, Briggs chose
not to do so, and the record reflects that he never requested
leave to supplement his appeal with additional evidence.
Briggs does not claim that he was unaware of the August 5,
2014 Order when he filed his appeal, nor does he contend that
it constitutes newly-discovered evidence. In fact, the August
5, 2014 Order has been known to Briggs since it was entered,
and he could have raised arguments pertaining to the Order
with Judge Rendlen and on appeal. Briggs chose not to do so,
and he cannot do so now.
event, even if the Court were to consider the August 5, 2014
Order, Briggs failed to satisfy the "heavy burden of
proof to overcome the presumption of Judge Rendlen's
impartiality. Based upon a review of the evidence presented
in this matter, the Court concludes that the Bankruptcy Court
did not err when it denied Briggs's motion to disqualify.
Accordingly, the motions to reconsider the Court's
September 26, 2019 Order will be denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant Ross
Briggs's motions to reconsider (Doc. Nos. 33, 34) are
 When referencing Judge Rendlen in his
capacity as Appellee, the Court will refer to said party as
"Appellee." Otherwise, when referencing actions
taken in the Bankruptcy Court proceedings, the Court will
either refer directly to Judge Rendlen or to the Bankruptcy
 The Court notes that Briggs did
provide evidence that he practiced before two other
Bankruptcy Court judges "without incident," and
this was considered by the Court when ruling on ...