Prunty et al v Morgan & Morgan et al

Filing 64

ORDER denying 62 and 63 Plaintiff Robert J. Prunty's Emergency Motions for Reconsideration under Federal Rules 59 and 60 Due to Fraud Upon the Court and Manifest Error. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 2/13/2018. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
ROBERT R. PRUNTY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-506-FtM-38CM

JASON ITKIN, KURT ARNOLD,
AVRAM BLAIR, JEFFREY MEYER,
JOHN BRYAN MORGAN, STEPHEN
SHELLER, SHANNIN SPECTER and
TOM KLINE,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Robert J. Prunty’s
Emergency2 Motions for Reconsideration under Federal Rules 59 and 60 Due to Fraud
Upon the Court and Manifest Error (Doc. 62, Doc. 63) filed on February 13, 2018. The
Motions will be denied.
BACKGROUND
On February 2, 2018, the Court dismissed this case for failure to state a claim for
Defendant John Bryan Morgan and for lack of personal jurisdiction for the other

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites.
These hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked
documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this
Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or
products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these
third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to
some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
Plaintiff’s Motions present no emergency. If Plaintiff continues to designate motions as such,
the Court may deny them summarily with no further consideration.
2

Defendants. (Doc. 58). The Court entered judgement and closed the case. (Doc. 59).
According to Plaintiff, reconsideration is warranted to correct clear error and prevent
manifest injustice and continuing injury to his minor son because of Morgan’s fraud on
the Court and the Court’s denial of due process. Plaintiff states that Morgan committed
fraud on this Court by failing to respond to the Second Amended Complaint and other
Court orders.
DISCUSSION
The decision to grant a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of
the trial court and may be granted to correct an abuse of discretion. Region 8 Forest
Serv. Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 806 (11th Cir. 1993). “The
courts have delineated three major grounds justifying reconsideration of such a decision:
(1) 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). And the Court has the inherent
power to assess sanctions for a party’s bad-faith conduct, including setting aside
judgments for fraud on the court and imposing attorney’s fees and costs, independent of
statutory or rule provisions. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44-50 (1991).
Fraud on the court is defined as “embracing only that species of fraud which does
or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so
that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of
adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication, and relief should be denied in the
absence of such conduct.” Securities & Exchange Commission v. ESM Group, Inc., 835

2

F.2d 270, 273 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Gore, 761 F.2d 1549,
1551 (11th Cir. 1985)).
Plaintiff argues that the Court erred when it dismissed his claims against Defendant
John Morgan with prejudice because Morgan did not respond to the Second Amended
Complaint. Plaintiff believes that the Court had no jurisdiction to dismiss Morgan and by
doing so denied Plaintiff his right to due process of law and the opportunity to prosecute
his case against Morgan.
The Court finds no fraud on the Court and no clear error in the Court’s Opinion and
Order. As set forth in the Opinion, the Court previously informed Plaintiff it had serious
doubt as to the viability of Plaintiff’s conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, which
were the only claims brought against Defendant John Morgan. (Doc. 58, p. 12). The
Court allowed Plaintiff one last opportunity to amend to correct these deficiencies and
Plaintiff failed to do so. That Defendant Morgan did not respond to the Second Amended
Complaint is not dispositive because (as cited in the Opinion), a court can dismiss its
action on its own motion if it employs a fair procedure by providing Plaintiff with notice
and an opportunity to respond. (Id. at 11). The Court did so.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Plaintiff Robert J. Prunty’s Emergency Motions for Reconsideration under Federal
Rules 59 and 60 Due to Fraud Upon the Court and Manifest Error (Doc. 62, Doc. 63) are
DENIED.

3

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 13th day of February, 2018.

Copies: All Parties of Record

4