Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Bright ( 1994 )


Menu:
  •                    United States Court of Appeals,
    Fifth Circuit.
    No. 94-10344
    Summary Calendar.
    FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    William A. BRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
    Oct. 10, 1994.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of Texas.
    Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
    ROBERT M. PARKER, Circuit Judge:
    Defendant-Appellant William A. Bright ("Bright") appeals the
    district court's March 10, 1994 order denying his Motion to Vacate
    or Reconsider Order Granting Summary Judgment and Declaring Moot
    Motion for Leave to Amend pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 59(e) and 15(a).
    We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
    denying Bright's motion to reopen his case.           AFFIRM.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    Bright was the majority shareholder, president and director of
    Horn-Williams Ford, Inc. ("Horn-Williams"), a Ford dealership in
    Dallas,   Texas.    Horn-Williams      participated    in   a   "floor-plan"
    financing    agreement   with    Plaintiff-Appellee    Ford     Motor   Credit
    Company ("Ford Credit"), through which Ford Credit financed the
    purchase of new cars by Horn-Williams, receiving payment upon the
    sale of the cars by Horn-Williams.
    In 1988, Horn-Williams obtained a capital loan of $600,000
    1
    from Ford Credit.    The loan was renewed on May 9, 1990 for the
    balance of $370,056.36.       Bright, in his individual capacity,
    executed a continuing guaranty covering all monies loaned to Horn-
    Williams, and executed individual unconditional guaranties on the
    capital loan and its renewal.
    After    experiencing   financial    difficulties,   Horn-Williams
    defaulted on its obligations under the capital loan renewal and
    floor plan financing agreements.       On August 6, 1991, Horn-Williams
    filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief, which was subsequently
    converted to a liquidation under Chapter 7 on January 31, 1992.
    Ford Credit made a demand for payment on Bright as guarantor
    of the Horn-Williams debt.    When no payment was forthcoming, Ford
    Credit filed suit on January 20, 1993 to recover debts on the
    unconditional guaranties signed by Bright in connection with the
    loans made by Ford Credit to Horn-Williams.
    On November 10, 1993, Ford Credit filed a Motion for Summary
    Judgment.    The district court granted Bright an extension of time
    to respond to Ford Credit's motion due to the sudden death of
    Bright's counsel.   On February 25, 1994, the court granted summary
    judgment for Ford Credit on the grounds that Bright relied on a
    defense that he failed to raise in his answer to Ford Credit's
    complaint.   The court entered Final Judgment against Bright for a
    total of $1,565,755.13, plus attorneys' fees.        On March 7, 1994,
    Bright filed a motion to vacate or for reconsideration pursuant to
    Rule 59(e) and a motion for leave to file an amended answer
    pursuant to Rule 15(a).      On March 10, 1994, the district court
    2
    denied Bright's Rule 59(e) motion, and declared moot Bright's Rule
    15(a) motion.    Bright appeals the court's March 10, 1994 order.
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    A motion to vacate or for reconsideration filed pursuant to
    FED.R.CIV.P. 59(e) allows a losing party to seek the trial court's
    reconsideration of its order granting summary judgment if served
    within 10 days of the rendition of judgment.                  See Lavespere v.
    Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 
    910 F.2d 167
    , 173-74 (5th
    Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 
    114 S. Ct. 171
    , 
    126 L. Ed. 2d 131
      (1993).     If    the    party   seeking       reconsideration     attaches
    additional materials to its motion that were not presented to the
    trial court for consideration at the time the court initially
    considered the motion for summary judgment, the court may consider
    the new materials in its discretion.                 Fields v. City of South
    Houston,   Texas,      
    922 F.2d 1183
    ,    1188    (5th   Cir.1991)    (citing
    
    Lavespere, 910 F.2d at 172-75
    ).                If the court considers the
    materials but still grants summary judgment, the appellate court
    may review all materials de novo.            
    Fields, 922 F.2d at 1188
    (citing
    
    Lavespere, 910 F.2d at 177-78
    ).                "On the other hand, if the
    district court refuses to consider the materials, the reviewing
    court applies the abuse of discretion standard."               
    Fields, 922 F.2d at 1188
    .   "Under this standard, the district court's decision and
    decision-making process need only be reasonable."                  Midland West
    Corp. v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 
    911 F.2d 1141
    , 1145 (5th
    Cir.1990).      Because      the   district    court   did   not   consider   the
    materials Bright submitted with his Rule 59(e) motion, we review
    3
    the court's order for an abuse of discretion.                  In addition, we
    review the district court's denial of Bright's motion to amend his
    complaint pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 15(a) for an abuse of discretion.
    See Southern Constructors Group, Inc. v. Dynalectric Co., 
    2 F.3d 606
    , 611 (5th Cir.1993).
    DISCUSSION
    Bright's answer to Ford Credit's complaint did not plead a
    defense under TEX.BUS. & COM.CODE § 9.504(c).              However, in response
    to Ford Credit's summary judgment motion, Bright argued that he was
    not liable on the guaranties because he did not receive a notice of
    the sale of the collateral, and because Ford Credit did not dispose
    of   the    collateral     in   a   commercially    reasonable     manner.   The
    district court granted summary judgment, finding that because
    Bright failed to specifically deny notification or commercially
    reasonable disposition in his answer, there existed no triable
    issue of fact as to Bright's liability on the guaranties.
    In its order denying Bright's Rule 59(e) motion and Rule
    15(a)      motion,   the    district    court     stated    that   the   "alleged
    "professional carelessness' of Bright's previous counsel does not
    merit reinstatement of his case." Our review of the record reveals
    no abuse of discretion.         Bright failed to plead a defense pursuant
    to § 9.504(c) in his answer to Ford Credit's complaint.                  He also
    failed to seek leave to amend his answer to include the defense
    before the district court entered summary judgment against him.                A
    court considering a Rule 59(e) motion requesting reconsideration
    may take into consideration an attorney's conduct in determining
    4
    whether to reopen a case.       See 
    Lavespere, 910 F.2d at 175
    .
    Therefore, the court's decision regarding whether to reopen a case
    must be reviewed in light of all the relevant circumstances on a
    case-by-case basis.   
    Id. In this
    case, we find that the district
    court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bright's Rule 59(e)
    motion. Further, we find that the district court did not abuse its
    discretion in denying Bright's Rule 15(a) motion as moot.   AFFIRM.
    5