Drazen v. Godaddy.com,LLC

Filing 146

Order DENYING 142 MOTION for Reconsideration of District Judge Order re 138 Order on Motion to Enforce Settlement filed by Susan Drazen. As to the Motion to Certify the Order for Appeal, Defendant GoDaddy.com, LLC shall file a Response on or before by 3/20/2025. Signed by District Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 3/11/2025. (meh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SUSAN DRAZEN, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GODADDY.COM, LLC,
Defendant.
JUAN PINTO,
Objector.
JASON BENNETT, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GODADDY.COM, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:19-00563-KD-B

Civil Action No. 1:20-00094-KD-B

ORDER
This action is before the Court on the Motion to Reconsider the Court’s February 6, 2025
Order or to Certify the Order for Appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) filed by Plaintiffs Susan Drazen
and Jason Bennett (doc. 142). Upon consideration, and for the reasons set forth herein, the Motion
to Reconsider is DENIED. However, as to the alternative Motion to Certify the Order for
Appeal, Defendant Godaddy.com, LLC shall file a response on or before March 20, 2025.
Plaintiffs move pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or the Court’s plenary powers over its
interlocutory orders and ask the Court to reconsider its decision to allow Godaddy to terminate the
class action settlement agreement. Plaintiffs argue that the Court made a manifest error of law
when it decided that the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated the Final Approval Order
in its entirety which consequently provided grounds for Godaddy to terminate the Settlement
Agreement. Plaintiffs argue that reconsideration and a ruling that only the attorney’s fees portion of

the Final Approval Order was vacated and remanded, is necessary to prevent a manifest injustice to
the class and class counsel. Specifically, the Court’s decision precludes their recovery of any
damages or compensation, respectively, from this litigation.
“A district court may grant a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) only if the movant
presents newly discovered evidence or demonstrates ‘manifest errors of law or fact’ in the
challenged ruling.” Giddens v. Lawson, 839 Fed. Appx. 350 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting Arthur v.
King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007). While Plaintiffs argue that the Court committed
manifest error, the arguments as to why and how the Court erred are substantially the same as those
previously before the Court and heard on January 31, 2025. Since a “‘Rule 59(e) motion [cannot be
used] to relitigate old matters…” Arthur, 500 F. 3d at 1343 (bracketed text in original) (citation
omitted), Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider is denied.
DONE and ORDERED this the 11th day of March 2025.
s/ Kristi K DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2