Kosterlitz v. The S/V Knotta KLU et al

Filing 97

ORDER denying 87 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 2/14/2019. (FWH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
MICHAEL KOSTERLITZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No:

2:18-cv-482-FtM-29MRM

THE S/V KNOTTA KLU, her
engines, tackle, apparel,
equipment and appurtenances,
in rem and ROBERT E. LIBBEY,
JR.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s January 24,
2019 Motion (Doc. #87) seeking reconsideration of the Court’s
January 17, 2019 Order (Doc. #84) denying plaintiff’s motion for
partial summary judgment.

Plaintiff’s motion indicates defendant

opposes the motion, but defendant has failed to file a response in
opposition and the time to do so has passed.

For the reasons that

follow, the motion is denied.
I.
A non-final order may be revised at any time before the entry
of a final judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

The decision to

grant a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion
of the trial court, Region 8 Forest Serv. Timber Purchasers Council
v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 806 (11th Cir. 1993), and courts have

delineated three major grounds justifying reconsideration: “(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) (citation omitted).
II.
Plaintiff

contends

that

“justice”

requires

the

Court

reconsider whether defendant fraudulently obtained a Certificate
of Deletion from the United States Coast Guard.

Plaintiff argues

the Court confused the Coast Guard’s deletion of the vessel from
federal registration with defendant’s alleged act of obtaining a
Certificate of Deletion by fraudulently claiming to be the vessel’s
owner.

(Doc. #87, pp. 4-8.)

Having reviewed the arguments in the

motion, the Court finds no basis for reconsideration.

In the

Order, the Court found summary judgment on the civil theft, false
arrest,

and

malicious

prosecution

claims

was

inappropriate

because, inter alia, there were questions for the trier of fact
regarding the following elements of the various offenses: probable
cause,
arrest.

malice,

criminal

intent,

(Doc. #84, pp. 9-18.)

and

instigation

of

unlawful

Plaintiff’s argument regarding

the Certificate of Deletion does not affect that conclusion, and
therefore summary judgment would not be appropriate regardless.
Plaintiff

also

argues

the

Coast

Guard’s

Certificate

of

Deletion contained in the record is inadmissible hearsay and the

- 2 -

Court erred in relying on it to find the vessel was deleted from
documentation in December 2016.
disagrees.

(Doc. #87, pp. 8-9.)

The Court

See Jones v. UPS Ground Freight, 683 F.3d 1283, 1293-

94 (11th Cir. 2012) (“[A] district court may consider a hearsay
statement in passing on a motion for summary judgment if the
statement could be reduced to admissible evidence at trial or
reduced to admissible form.” (citation omitted)); Fed. R. Evid.
803(8) (providing exception to hearsay rule for public records);
United States v. Reyes, 406 Fed. App’x 405, 408 (11th Cir. 2010)
(finding district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting
Coast Guard report under Rule 803(8)).

Therefore, plaintiff’s

motion for reconsideration is denied. *
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Plaintiff's

Motion

for

Reconsideration

of

Order

Denying

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Motion
to Re-Open Discovery and Continue Trial (Doc. #87) is DENIED.

*

Requested in the motion as an alternative relief, plaintiff
moves to continue the non-jury trial and reopen discovery solely
for the purpose of deposing an authorized representative of the
National Vessel Documentation Center.
(Doc. #87, pp. 9-10.)
Plaintiff asserts this will “cure the hearsay issues relating to
the Certificate of Deletion.” (Id. p. 9.) As the information in
the Certification of Deletion may not constitute hearsay, the Court
will deny the request. However, the denial is without prejudice
should plaintiff choose to file a formal motion to continue and
explain in further detail why the scheduled trial should be delayed
and discovery reopened.

- 3 -

DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of February, 2019.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

- 4 -

14th

day