Pimentel et al v. Strength20, LLC et al

Filing 169

ORDER denying 163 Motion for Relief from Order. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek on 3/5/2025. (CGW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
EMMANUEL PIMENTEL,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 2:23-CV-544-JLB-KCD

v.
STRENGTH20, LLC, A FLORIDA
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY;
GLOBAL STRATEGIES
CONSULTANT GROUP, CORP., A
FOR PROFIT FLORIDA
CORPORATION; ROMMEL A.
ARIZA, INDIVIDUALLY; AND
FLORIDA STRUCTURAL GROUP,
INC., A FOR PROFIT FLORIDA
CORPORATION;
Defendants,
/

ORDER
Plaintiffs are security guards who Defendants allegedly employed to
protect construction sites around Sanibel Island and Fort Myers Beach in the
wake of Hurricane Ian. (See Doc. 46.)1 They have sued Defendants for failing
to pay minimum and overtime wages, as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, case history, and
alterations have been omitted in this and later citations.
1

During discovery, Plaintiffs sent Defendant Florida Structural Group
“two narrow requests for production geared toward discovering the nature [of]
services that Defendant FSG was providing to its clients.” (Doc. 161 at 2.) FSG
objected, so Plaintiffs asked the Court for “an order overruling Defendants’
objections and compelling better discovery responses.” (Id. at 2.) FSG did not
respond to the motion, thus abandoning its objections to the discovery. See
Gray v. Fla. Beverage Corp., No. 618CV1779ORL31LRH, 2019 WL 13249032,
at *4 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 23, 2019) (“Objections asserted that are not addressed in
a response to a motion to compel are deemed to have been abandoned.”). The
Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion and directed FSG to produce the documents
sought. (See Doc. 162.)
FSG now seeks relief from that order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). (Doc.
163 at 13-14.) According to FSG, it “failed to respond to the . . . motion to
compel” because of a calendaring error, which it asserts is “excusable neglect.”
(Id. at 3.)
For starters, FSG seeks relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), but that is
the wrong procedural vehicle. (See Doc. 163.) Rule 60 applies only to final
judgments, orders, and proceedings—none of which have occurred here. See,
e.g., Austin v. Metro Dev. Grp., LLC, No. 8:20-CV-1472-KKM-TGW, 2021 WL
1164804, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2021). FSG moves to overturn a non-final
discovery order, which makes Rule 60 irrelevant. Rodriguez v. Clear Blue Ins.
2

Co., No. 8:22-CV-02455-KKM-AEP, 2024 WL 3520794, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July
24, 2024).
At any rate, district courts have inherent authority to reconsider nonfinal orders. See Hornady v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, 118 F.4th 1367,
1379-81 (11th Cir. 2024). But this discretion should be exercised only in
extraordinary circumstances. “For reasons of policy, courts and litigants
cannot be repeatedly called upon to backtrack through the paths of litigation
which are often laced with close questions. There is a badge of dependability
necessary to advance the case to the next stage.” Burger King Corp. v. Ashland
Equities, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1370 (S.D. Fla. 2002).
Reconsideration is proper only where: (1) there is an intervening change
in controlling law, (2) new evidence has become available, or (3) relief from the
judgment is necessary 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). “The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors
of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Burger King Corp., 181
F. Supp. 2d at 1369.
FSG does not claim an intervening change in controlling law or new
facts. Nor has it shown legal error. Instead, FSG argues that it would have
opposed the discovery motion but for a calendaring error. (Doc. 163 at 3.) It’s
debatable whether this constitutes excusable neglect as FSG claims. See
3

Solaroll Shade & Shutter Corp. v. Bio-Energy Sys., Inc., 803 F.2d 1130, 1132
(11th Cir. 1986) (“[A]n attorney’s negligent failure to respond to a motion does
not constitute excusable neglect, even if that attorney is preoccupied with other
litigation.”). Regardless, the Court declines to revisit its order. Discovery has
closed, which leaves Plaintiffs without recourse to correct any deficiencies the
Court may now find with its discovery requests. FSG has effectively
“prejudiced [Plaintiffs] through an impermissible delay that was wholly within
its control.” Roofing & Reconstruction Contractors of Am. LLC v. USAA Cas.
Ins. Co., No. 2:20-CV-823-JLB-NPM, 2021 WL 8893980, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug.
25, 2021). Relief is not appropriate on such facts. Id.
“The Court’s opinions are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to
revision and reconsideration at a litigant’s pleasure.” Prescott v. Alejo, No.
2:09-CV-791-FTM-36, 2010 WL 2670860, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 2, 2010).
Instead, “reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy” to be
employed sparingly. Taylor Woodrow Const. Corp. v. Sarasota/Manatee
Airport Auth., 814 F. Supp. 1072, 1072 (M.D. Fla. 1993). FSG’s arguments do
not meet this standard, and thus, the Motion for Relief from Order (Doc. 163)
is DENIED.

4

ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on March 5, 2025.

5