Jablonski v. Martin et al

Filing 57

ORDER denying 55 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 5/6/2016. (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 Reconsideration (Doc. 55), filed on
May 2, 2016. Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its denial of his request
for an extension of time to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

For the

reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
This case was removed from the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, in and for Lee
County, Florida on or around June 26, 2015. Doc. 1. Plaintiff appears to allege
claims against Defendants for breach of contract, fraud and negligence. Doc. 2 at 2.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on July 23, 2015.

Doc. 10.

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. After numerous extensions and nearly ninety days later, Plaintiff filed his
Amended Complaint (Doc. 39) on February 2, 2016.

See Docs. 28, 34, 36.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 9, 2016. Doc.
46. Plaintiff requested a 14-day extension to respond to the motion to dismiss which
was granted by the undersigned. Docs. 49, 50. Plaintiff was granted up to and
including April 6, 2016 to respond to the motion to dismiss. Doc. 50. On April 6,
2016, Plaintiff filed yet another motion for extension of time to respond to the motion
to dismiss. Doc. 51. Judge Chappell allowed Plaintiff up to and including April 22,
2016 to respond to Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Doc. 52.

Judge Chappell

specifically noted, however, that no further extensions would be granted.

Id.

Despite Judge Chappell’s Order, on April 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed another motion for
extension of time to respond to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Doc. 53. Pursuant
to Judge Chappell’s directive, the undersigned denied Plaintiff’s request for an
extension and reminded Plaintiff that no further extensions would be permitted.
Doc. 54. Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider the denial because Defendants’
counsel agreed to the extension. Doc. 55.
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

-2-

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,
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.
Here, Plaintiff appears to allege that because Defendants’ counsel agreed to an
extension, that is must be granted. Docs. 55 at 1, 3; 55-1 at 1. While the Court
considers whether the opposing party has any objection to the requested relief,
district courts have broad discretion when managing their cases in order to ensure
that the cases move to a timely and orderly conclusion.

Chrysler Int’l Corp. v.

Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2002). Therefore, although the parties

-3-

agreed to the extension, the Court has an interest in moving this case forward.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of his request for an
extension is denied.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 55) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 6th day of May, 2016.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-4-