Jablonski v. Martin et al
Filing
38
ORDER denying 37 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time, construed as a Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff must file his amended complaint on or before February 2, 2016. Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint on or before February 2, 2016 could result in Plaintiff's case being dismissed for lack of prosecution. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 1/25/2016. (ANW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
EDWARD J. JABLONSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 2:15-cv-383-FtM-38CM
CHRISTOPHER W. MARTIN,
TODD M. LONERGAN and
MARTIN, DISIERE, JEFFERSON
& WISDOM,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time, construed as a
Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 37), filed on January 21, 2016.
According to
Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants do not oppose the requested relief. Doc. 37 at 1. For
the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
On November 6, 2015, United States District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell
granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Doc. 20. Judge
Chappell directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before November 20,
2015. Id. at 7. Plaintiff later filed a motion for extension of time requesting 30
additional days to file his amended complaint. Doc. 27. The undersigned granted
Plaintiff’s motion and allowed Plaintiff until December 21, 2015 to file his amended
complaint.
Doc. 28.
Plaintiff then filed another motion for extension of time
requesting 90 days to file an amended complaint.
Doc. 33.
The Court was not
inclined to allow Plaintiff an additional 90-days but the Court gave Plaintiff until
January 15, 2016 to file his amended complaint. Doc. 34. Plaintiff subsequently
filed another motion for extension on January 12, 2016 again requesting a 60-90 day
extension. Doc. 35. The Court allowed Plaintiff one final extension and granted
him up to and including February 2, 2016 to file his amended complaint. Doc. 36.
With the additional extension, Plaintiff has been allowed nearly 90 days to file his
amended complaint. Plaintiff now states that he seeks more time than that allowed
in Doc. 36. Thus, the Court construes this motion as a motion for reconsideration.
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, 694 (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)).
-2-
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,
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 finds that Plaintiff has not set forth any new facts or law to convince
the Court to reverse its prior decision.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time, construed as a Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 37) is DENIED. Plaintiff must file his amended complaint on
or before February 2, 2016. Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint on or
before February 2, 2016 could result in Plaintiff’s case being dismissed for lack of
prosecution.
-3-
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 25th day of January,
2016.
Copies:
Counsel of record
-4-
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?