IN RE FORTRAN PRINTING, INC. (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 2003)

RANDOLPH BAXTER, Bankruptcy Judge

General Electric Capital Business Asset Funding Corporation ("GECBAF" or "Movant") seeks reconsideration of this Court's Order of July 11, 2003 which dismissed an involuntary Chapter 11 petition filed by the Movant and other petitioners against Fortran Printing, Inc. (alleged Debtor). Upon a duly-noticed hearing, an examination of the pleadings, and arguments of counsel, said motion is denied.

Although a motion for reconsideration is not mentioned in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is often treated as a motion made under Rule 59(e). McDowell v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 931 F.2d 380 (6th Cir. 1991). Pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made applicable to these proceedings under Bankruptcy Rule 9023(e), court rulings, generally, may be vacated upon a showing of manifest error of law or fact The purpose of a motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) is to have the court reconsider matters "properly encompassed in a decision on the merits." Generally, three situations justify a court altering or amending its judgment: "(1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or to prevent a manifest injustice." In re Continental Holdings, Inc., 170 B.R. 919, 933 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1994); Braun v. Champion Credit Union, 141 B.R. 144, 146 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1992), affd, 152 B.R. 466 (N.D.Ohio 1993); It is not designed to give an unhappy litigant an opportunity to relitigate matters already decided, nor is it a substitute for appeal. See Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998) (explaining that "[a] motion under Rule 59(e) is not an opportunity to re-argue a case"). The Sixth Circuit has indicated that motions under Rule 59(e) must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence." Id. (quoting FDIC v. World Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992)).

Herein, none of the required elements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) has been demonstrated persuasively. Specifically, Movant has failed to show the existence of a manifest error of law or fact. Nor has it been shown the existence of newly discovered evidence. Rather, the principal focus of GECBAF's argument is placed upon its perceived shortcomings of the state court receivership under which the involuntary Debtor was placed prepetition, in comparison to the argued advantages of the Bankruptcy process. In brief, Movant argues strongly for a federal bankruptcy remedy, as opposed to a state court receivership for the alleged Debtor. That argument must fail.

The receivership under which the Debtor was placed prepetition occurred pursuant to a state court's order. The propriety of the receivership apparently has been unchallenged by the Movant in state court. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court is an improper forum by which such order is to be contested. Comity demands treading lightly on state court orders appointing receivers. To insure comity between federal courts and state courts, Congress prohibits federal courts from enjoining a state court proceeding, except where necessary to aid in its jurisdiction or where specifically authorized by statute. See Larson v. Kreisers, Inc. (In re Kreisers, Inc.), 112 B.R. 996, 998 (Bankr. S.D. S.D. 1990). As the Supreme Court opined:

The notion of `comity', that is, a proper respect for state functions, [reflects a] recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a union of separate state governments, and continuance of the belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways.

Younger v. Ham, 401 U.S. 37, 44, 97 S.Ct. 746, 750, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). Herein, the record is silent to show where the Movant, or any other party-in-interest., challenged the propriety of the state court's receivership order.

Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is hereby denied. Each party is to bear its respective costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.