IN RE SAWICKI

THOMAS TUCKER, Bankruptcy Judge

This case comes before the Court on "Trustee's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Ruling on Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment," filed on July 2, 2007 (Docket # 28).

The Court having reviewed and considered the motion for reconsideration and related papers filed by the parties, the Court concludes that the motion fails to demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties have been misled, and that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof. See Local Rule 9024-1(c).

The Court further notes the following. In its June 20, 2007 bench opinion, in ruling that the default judgment in question was void because the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction at the time the default judgment was entered, the Court held that this was so for two reasons: (1) because the main bankruptcy case had been closed and not reopened before the Trustee filed this adversary proceeding and obtained the default judgment; and (2) because the Trustee had been discharged as trustee when the case was closed and he remained in that status until well after the default judgment was entered. Because of the second reason, the Court held, "the trustee lacked any authority or standing" to file this adversary proceeding and obtain the default judgment when he took those actions. ( See Docket # 30: June 20, 2007 transcript, at 23). The motion for reconsideration claims that the Court's first reason above was error, but does not challenge or present any reason or authority to show error in the second reason, which was an independent basis for finding the default judgment void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Alston v. Advanced Brands and Importing Co., ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 2032776 (6th Cir., July 17, 2007) (a plaintiff's lack of standing requires dismissal of action "for lack of jurisdiction"). For these reasons, it is unnecessary to reach the merits of the Trustee's argument in the reconsideration motion, i.e., the argument that the mere fact that the main bankruptcy case had been closed did not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding.

NOW, THEREFORE,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration should be, and hereby is, DENIED.