Yerk v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Filing
192
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 186 Motion for Reconsideration. Footnote three is stricken from the Opinion and Order (Doc. #179). The Motion is otherwise denied. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 12/1/2011. (GEL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
ROBERT E. TARDIF, JR., as Trustee
for Jason Yerk,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No.
2:09-cv-537-FtM-29SPC
PEOPLE for the ETHICAL TREATMENT of
ANIMALS, a Virginia not-for-profit
corporation,
Defendant.
______________________________________
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for
Reconsideration in Context of Final Pretrial Proceedings of Partial
Denial of Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant (Doc. #186) filed
on November 14, 2011.
November 28, 2011.
Plaintiff filed a response (Doc. #190) on
Defendant requests reconsideration “due to the
need to avoid clear error in the legal underpinning” of the Court’s
November 4, 2011 Opinion and Order (Doc. #179) which granted in
part
and
denied
in
part
the
defendant’s
motion
for
summary
judgment.
Reconsideration
of
a
court’s
previous
order
is
an
extraordinary remedy and, thus, is a power which should be used
sparingly.
Am. Ass’n of People with Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F.
Supp. 2d 1337, 1339 (M.D. Fla. 2003)(citing Taylor Woodrow Constr.
Corp. v. Sarasota/Manatee Airport Auth., 814 F. Supp. 1072, 1072-73
(M.D. Fla. 1993)).
issues,
not
“A motion for reconsideration should raise new
merely
readdress
issues
litigated
previously.”
PaineWebber Income Props. Three Ltd. P'ship v. Mobil Oil Corp., 902
F. Supp. 1514, 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1995).
The motion must set forth
facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to demonstrate to the
court the reason to reverse its prior decision.
Taylor Woodrow,
814 F. Supp. at 1073; PaineWebber, 902 F. Supp. at 1521.
“When
issues have been carefully considered and decisions rendered, the
only reason which should commend reconsideration of that decision
is a change in the factual or legal underpinning upon which the
decision was based.”
Taylor Woodrow, 814 F. Supp. at 1072-73.
A motion for reconsideration does not provide an opportunity
to simply reargue – or argue for the first time – an issue the
Court has once determined.
Court opinions “are not intended as
mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a
litigant’s pleasure.”
Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus.,
Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1988).
“The burden is upon
the movant to establish the extraordinary circumstances supporting
reconsideration.”
Mannings v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough Cnty., 149
F.R.D. 235, 235 (M.D. Fla. 1993).
Unless the movant’s arguments
fall into certain limited categories, a motion to reconsider must
be denied.
Under Rule 59(e), courts have “delineated three major grounds
justifying
reconsideration:
(1)
-2-
an
intervening
change
in
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; (3) the need
to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”
Sussman v.
Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994).
With one exception, defendant’s motion for reconsideration merely
reargues the merits of its position or articulates new arguments
that could have been raised in its original motion. Defendant does
not
contend
that
there
has
been
an
intervening
change
in
controlling law. Similarly, defendant does not contend that any of
its new arguments are based on new evidence.
To the extent that
defendant contends that reconsideration is necessary to correct
clear error, the Court disagrees and concludes that defendant has
not satisfied the standard outlined above. Based upon Melendres v.
State, 739 So. 2d 1237, 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)(finding that police
internal affairs investigation is an official proceeding), the
Court will strike footnote three in the Opinion and Order.
#179, p. 11.)
(Doc.
The Court will not, however, change the substance of
its prior ruling.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration in Context of Final
Pretrial Proceedings of Partial Denial of Summary Judgment in Favor
of Defendant (Doc. #186) is GRANTED to the extent that footnote
three is hereby stricken; the motion is otherwise DENIED.
-3-
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
December, 2011.
Copies: Counsel of record
-4-
1st
day of
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?