Luft v. Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corporation et al

Filing 71

ORDER denying 68 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 2/21/2014. (ALB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
CARRIE LUFT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:11-cv-703-FtM-29CM

CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS
REALTY CORPORATION, CITI
PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC.,
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
LONE STAR FUNDS, INC., MARK
H. MULLER, Esq., MARK H.
MULLER, P.A., DANIELLE
SPRADLEY, Esq., MICHAEL
D’ONOFRIO, Esq., BEN-EZRA &
KATZ, P.A., AMERICAN HOME
MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC.,
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS
INC., CITIGROUP HOME
MORTGAGE, Trust 2007-AHL3,
LIQUIDATION PROPERTIES,
INC., ACCREDITED HOME
LENDERS HOLDING CO., as
successor in interest to Accredited
Home Lenders, Inc., and JOHN
AND JANE DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration of Electronic Filing (Doc. #68) filed on February 12, 2014. Plaintiff,

pro se, Carrie Luft moves the Court to reconsider its February 5, 2014 Order denying
her Motion to Allow Electronic Filing (Doc. #67). Plaintiff argues that allowing her

to file documents electronically in this case will save time and the Court resources.
She also informs the Court that she is out of the country indefinitely and unable to
file documents with the Court in person. Plaintiff also asserts that she has to rely
on the Defendant to forward orders to her when it is not their responsibility to do so.
In her initial Motion (Doc. #64), Plaintiff failed to provide any grounds for her request.
Reconsideration of a court’s previous order is an extraordinary remedy and,
thus, is a power which should be used sparingly. Carter v. Premier Rest. Mgmt.,
2006 WL 2620302 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 13, 2006) (citing American Ass’n of People with

Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F. Supp 2d 1337, 1339 (M.D. Fla. 2003)). The courts have
“delineated three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change
in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; (3) the need to correct clear
error or prevent manifest injustice.” Susman v. Salem, Saxon & Meilson, P.A., 153
F.R.D. 689, 904 (M.D. Fla. 1994). “A motion for reconsideration should raise new
issues, not merely readdress issues litigated previously.”

Paine Webber 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. Carter, 2006 WL 2620302, at *1
(citing Taylor Woodrow Constr. Corp. v. Sarasota/Manatee Auth., 814 F. Supp. 1072,
1072-73 (M.D. Fla. 1993)).
A motion for reconsideration does not provide an opportunity to simply reargue
– or argue for the first time – an issue the Court has already determined. Carter,
2006 WL 2620302, at * 1. The Court’s opinions “are not intended as mere first drafts,

-2-

subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant’s pleasure.” Id. (citing Quaker

Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Industries, 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 Hillsboro Cnty., Fla., 149

F.R.D. 235, 235 (M.D. Fla. 1993).

“Unless the movant’s arguments fall into the

limited categories outlined above, a motion to reconsider must be denied.” Carter,
2006 WL 2620302, at *1.
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s memorandum and grounds upon which she
asserts that the Court should allow her access to electronic filing in this matter. The
Court still finds that allowing Plaintiff access to CM/ECF is not warranted. Plaintiff
has elected to proceed pro se in this matter and travel out of the country and must
proceed accordingly, which includes allowing additional time for mailing. The Court
will entertain reasonable requests for a courtesy copy of the docket sheet so that
Plaintiff may stay apprised of the activity in this case, but Plaintiff must demonstrate
to the Court that she has no other means to access the docket sheet on her own.
Further, the Clerk of Court will mail all orders entered by the Court to Plaintiff at
the mailing address she has provided to the Court.
Plaintiff is reminded that, despite her pro se status, it is mandatory that she
participate and cooperate in discovery, comply with the deadlines established in the
Court’s Scheduling Order, respond properly to motions, and proceed in accordance
with the Federal and Local Rules. Loren v Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir.
2002) (holding that even pro se parties must follow procedures).

-3-

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Electronic Filing (Doc. #68) is
DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 21st day of February,
2014.

Copies:
Counsel of record
Unrepresented parties

-4-