Saito et al v. Patel et al

Filing 60

ORDER denying 58 Motion for Reconsideration re 51 Order on Motion to Strike, filed by Lynne'a Saito, Koichi Saito. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek on 5/13/2024. (CGW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
KOICHI SAITO and LYNNE’A
SAITO,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No.: 2:24-cv-65-JES-KCD

PRATIK PATEL, DECUBAS &
LEWIS, PETER LANNING, EX
LEGAL PLLC, COLLIER COUNTY
ET AL, STATE OF FLORIDA, and
MARC JOSEPH,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
Plaintiffs Koichi and Lynnea Saito previously moved to strike the notices
of appearance filed by attorneys Steve Tran and Steven Force “unless [they]
can show [] legal and lawful authority to represent” their clients. (Docs. 49, 50
at 1.) That request was denied (Doc. 51), and Plaintiffs now ask the Court to
reconsider its ruling (Doc. 58).
Reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be
employed sparingly. “Only a change in the law, or the facts upon which a
decision is based, will justify a reconsideration of a previous order.” Sussman
v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994).
Plaintiffs do not claim an intervening change in controlling law or the

underlying facts. Nor have Plaintiffs shown any legal error to induce the Court
to reverse its decision. Plaintiffs instead seek to re-litigate the merits of their
motions to strike. But “a motion for reconsideration does not provide an
opportunity to simply reargue an issue the Court has once determined.” Am.
Ass’n of People With Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1340 (M.D. Fla.
2003).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiffs’ Objection and Demand for Reconsideration (Doc. 58) is

DENIED.
ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on May 13, 2024.

Copies: All Parties of Record

2