FRANK OTTE, Chief Judge
This matter came before the Court upon the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Denial of Motion for Return of Unclaimed Funds to Debtor. The Court, having reviewed the pleading, finds that the relief prayed for should be denied
Omega Consulting is requesting that this Court reconsider its decision to deny the Motions for Order Releasing Unclaimed Funds filed by Omega Consulting on the basis that its counsel failed to attend the hearing because he incorrectly noted the hearing date. On March 5, 2008, Notice was sent to the parties of the hearing date of April 14, 2008 10:30 a.m. The Court noted from its file that Omega Consulting had been properly served with the hearing notice. Omega Consulting does not contend that it did not receive proper notice of the hearing. Eric Dangerfield (who signed the Motions for Order Releasing Unclaimed Funds) contacted the Court directly and admitted he received the Court's Notice. Mr. Baum, counsel for Omega, called after the hearing, indicating he was having trouble getting flights to attend the hearing he said he thought was the next day. The Court finds it perplexing that Mr. Buam would be trying to secure flights the day he in fact would have had to have been flying out if he had even been correct in when he thought the hearing was scheduled. However, none of that is relevant to this Court's decision to deny the motion to reconsider. It is discretionary for this Court to reconsider its entry based on the party's assertion that it missed the hearing due to mistake of counsel. Omega, in it Motion to Reconsider, claims this Court did not likely have the opportunity to review and consider its Memorandum of Law. This Court had in fact done its own research prior to the scheduled hearing. Furthermore, this Court has reviewed Omega's late filed Memorandum, and nothing in it persuades this Court to use its equitable powers to reverse its decision which was rendered at the scheduled hearing on April 14, 2008 (followed up by a written entry). The Court was not even required to hold a hearing on this matter, but did so to give Omega an opportunity to support its argument before this Court. Omega had its opportunity to make an argument in open court but failed, for whatever reason, to do so. This Court's decision was based on a review of the pleadings and relevant law. This Court finds that it is not necessary to have another hearing on this matter.
Based upon the foregoing, this Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Denial of Motion for Return of Unclaimed Funds to Debtor.