Kristine Brecht v. Michael Klein, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denies Kristine Brecht’s motion for reconsideration of an earlier award of attorneys’ fees, damages, and costs under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8020. The court holds that the motion merely repeats arguments previously presented and identifies no new point of law or fact overlooked or misapprehended. The court orders supplemental briefing on whether it has jurisdiction to decide Brecht’s motion for a comfort order concerning the sale of real property during the pendency of her appeal.

Holdings

1. The district court had subject matter jurisdiction to decide Brecht's motion for rehearing because Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 6(b)(2)(A) permits a court exercising appellate jurisdiction to consider a Rule 8022 rehearing motion while a bankruptcy case is pending appeal.
2. Rehearing was unwarranted because Brecht identified no new point of law or fact that the court had overlooked or misapprehended; her arguments repeated those made in opposition to the trustee's motion for fees and costs.
3. The court did not decide the comfort-order motion on the merits; instead, it ordered supplemental briefing on whether it had jurisdiction to decide the motion and on the motion's merits.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to decide Brecht's motion for rehearing while an appeal was pending in the Ninth Circuit.
2. Whether Brecht demonstrated a new point of law or fact that the district court had overlooked or misapprehended, warranting rehearing under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8022.
3. Whether the district court had jurisdiction to decide Brecht's motion for a comfort order concerning the property sale during the pending appeal.
4. Whether the court should order supplemental briefing concerning the jurisdiction and merits of the comfort-order motion.

Disposition

other