Robinson et al v. Doe et al
Filing
113
OPINION and ORDER granting in part and denying in part 112 Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. The Court's September 2, 2014 108 Order is modified to reflect that Plaintiffs' claim for intentional infliction of emotional distr ess is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk shall enter an amended judgment reflecting that the federal law claims in 50 Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice. The Court declines to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims, which are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 10/20/2014. (MAW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
ANITA ROBINSON and ALBERT M.
ROBINSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No: 2:12-cv-675-FtM-29CM
SECTION 23 PROPERTY OWNER’S
ASSOCIATION, INC., RONALD
WOODS,
HARVEY
GOLDSTEIN,
CYRIL
SCHRAGE,
JOSEPH
HARRIS, KAREN PERRY, MS.
JANE DOE, VICKY DOE, EARLE
JAY CARLSON, DAVID K. OAKS,
GUY NERONI, RICHARD DALTON,
CHARLOTTE COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, and VICTORIA
CRAIG,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. #112) filed on September 17, 2014.
The
deadline for Defendants to respond to the motion has expired and
no response has been filed.
For the reasons set forth below, the
motion is mostly denied.
I.
Plaintiffs Albert and Anita Robinson are proceeding pro se
and
in
forma
pauperis
in
this
action.
(Docs.
##14,
15.)
Plaintiffs’ claims stemmed from actions taken by the Section 23
Property Owner’s Association and its board members (Section 23 or
Defendants1), which manage the subdivision known as Deep Creek,
where Plaintiffs live in Punta Gorda, Florida.
(Doc. #50.)
According to Plaintiffs, Section 23 has imposed fines and obtained
an injunction against Plaintiffs in an effort to enforce two deed
restrictions.
enforcement
(Id.)
of
the
According
deed
to
Plaintiffs,
restrictions
Defendants’
constituted
unlawful
discrimination and is part of a scheme to force Plaintiffs to
abandon their property.
(Id.)
Plaintiffs brought claims against
Section 23 for intentional infliction of emotional distress and
for violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the Racketeering
Influenced
Corrupt
Organization
Act
(RICO),
and
Plaintiffs’
constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
(Id.)
On September 2, 2014, the Court issued an Order (Doc. #108)
dismissing Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint, the then-current
operative pleading, with prejudice.
In reaching that conclusion,
the Court determined that, despite multiple opportunities to amend
and
substantial
guidance
from
the
Court,
Plaintiffs
had
not
adequately pled any causes of action arising under federal law and
that further amendment would be futile.2
(Id.)
Plaintiffs now
1
Defendant David K. Oaks (Oaks) serves as counsel for Section 23,
and Plaintiffs’ allegations against him concern actions taken in
that role.
Accordingly, the Court’s collective reference to
“Defendants” or “Section 23” includes Oaks.
2
The
Court
also
concluded
that
- 2 -
Plaintiffs’
Fourth
Amended
seek reconsideration of that Order and request that it be modified
to a dismissal without prejudice so that Plaintiffs can file a new
amended complaint.
II.
“Reconsideration
of
a
court’s
previous
order
is
an
extraordinary remedy and, thus, is a power which should be used
sparingly.”
American 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)).
raise
new
previously.”
issues,
not
“A motion for reconsideration should
merely
readdress
issues
litigated
PaineWebber Income Props. Three Ltd. P'ship v. Mobil
Oil Corp., 902 F. Supp. 1514, 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1995).
Courts have
“delineated three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new
evidence; [and] (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).
Unless the movant’s arguments
fall into one of these categories, the motion must be denied.
The motion to reconsider must set forth facts or law of a
strongly convincing nature to demonstrate to the court the reason
Complaint was subject to dismissal with prejudice due to
Plaintiffs’ repeated failure to submit a complaint that was not a
“shotgun pleading.”
- 3 -
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.
first
drafts,
subject
litigant’s pleasure.”
Court opinions “are not intended as mere
to
revision
and
reconsideration
at
a
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).
III.
Here, Plaintiffs have not articulated any grounds justifying
reconsideration.
Indeed, Plaintiffs’ motion does not argue that
the Court’s Order was arrived at in error or note any intervening
change in the law which would compel a different result.
Instead,
the majority of Plaintiffs’ motion is devoted to new allegations
that
Defendants
were
involved
in
identity
theft.
However,
Plaintiffs do not connect these allegations to the Court’s prior
Order, nor do they explain how the allegations support their motion
- 4 -
for reconsideration.
Moreover, the allegations of identity theft
appear to have no relation whatsoever to the FHA, RICO, and
constitutional rights claims brought by Plaintiffs in this case
and,
therefore,
are
insufficient
to
warrant
reconsideration.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not shown
the requisite intervening change in controlling law, availability
of new evidence, or need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice necessary to warrant reconsideration.
As set forth in the dismissal Order, Plaintiffs were given
numerous
chances
to
amend
their
complaint
and
were
provided
explicit instructions concerning how to remedy the persistent
procedural
and
substantive
deficiencies
in
their
pleadings.
However, these instructions were routinely ignored, Plaintiffs
repeatedly failed to adequately plead any claims arising under
federal law, and nothing in Plaintiffs’ motion suggests that
Plaintiffs can remedy those errors even if given yet another chance
to amend.
reflect
However, the Court will amend the dismissal Order to
that
Plaintiffs’
intentional
infliction
of
emotional
distress claim was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and without
prejudice.
Having found that Plaintiffs had failed to adequately
plead any claims arising under federal law, the Court declined to
retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claim for
intentional
infliction
of
emotional
distress.
Accordingly,
Plaintiffs’ claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress
- 5 -
is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiffs filing such a claim
in state court.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #112) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
The Court’s September 2, 2014
Order (Doc. #108) is modified to reflect that Plaintiffs’ claim
for intentional infliction of emotional distress is dismissed
without prejudice.
2.
The motion is otherwise DENIED.
The Clerk shall enter an amended judgment reflecting
that the federal law claims in Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint
(Doc. #50) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
3.
The
Plaintiffs’
Court
remaining
declines
state
to
law
retain
claims,
jurisdiction
which
are
over
DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of October, 2014.
Copies:
Counsel of Record
- 6 -
20th
day
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?