to withdraw the reference to the bankruptcy court. (Docket No. 14.) On April 2, 2013, defendant Perímetro submitted a motion requesting the Court to reconsider. (Docket No. 17.) II. LEGAL STANDARD “A motion for reconsideration is treated as a motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Rosario Rivera v. PS Group of P.R., Inc., 186 F.Supp.2d 63, 65 (D.P.R.2002). Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) (“Rule 59(e)”) , “the moving party ‘must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence’” in order to prevail. Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Diaz-Santiago, 674 F.3d 21, 32 (1st Cir.2012) (quoting F.D.I.C. v. World Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.1992)); see also Marie v. Allied Home Mortg. Corp., 402 F.3d 1, 7 n. 2 (1st Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>) (internal citation omitted). It is
recognizing that four reasons for granting a rule 59e motion are manifest errors of law or fact newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence manifest injustice and an intervening change in controlling law recognizing that a court will ordinarily apply new legislation to pending cases unless manifest injustice would result recognizing examples of exceptional circumstances where the public interest requires that the issues be heard or manifest injustice would result from the failure to consider such issues holding that the complained of statements may be improper personalizations but plain error does not embrace all errors and defendant has not demonstrated manifest injustice holding that application of the doctrine of law of the case is discretionary and that a district court abuses its discretion in applying the law of the case doctrine only if 1 the first decision was clearly erroneous 2 an intervening change in the law occurred 3 the evidence on remand was substantially different 4 other changed circumstances exist or 5 a manifest injustice would otherwise result