Thomas et al v. City of Palm Coast et al

Filing 82

ORDER denying 75 Motion for Reconsideration; granting in part and denying in part 76 Motion to Amend Complaint to Include Facts Ascertained in Discovery; plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint to be filed and served by 3/1/2016; defendants' response to be filed and served by 3/21/2016 (remainder of case to be scheduled thereafter). Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 2/5/2016.(SRW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
JAMES R. THOMAS and LINDA S.
THOMAS,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Case No. 3:14-cv-172-J-32PDB

CITY OF PALM COAST, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This case is before the Court on plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order of
Dismissal of Counts VIII and XI (Doc. 75), to which defendants have filed a response in
opposition (Doc. 80); and plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint to Include Facts Ascertained
in Discovery (Doc. 76), to which defendants have filed a response in (partial) opposition
(Doc. 81).
“The three primary grounds that justify reconsideration are: (1) an intervening change
in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear
error or prevent manifest unjustice.” Delaware Valley Floral Group, Inc. v. Shaw Rose Nets,
LLC, 597 F.3d 1374, 1383 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation and citation omitted). Plaintiffs
presumably contend that the Court has committed clear error as they have not identified any
other basis for reconsideration and their argument is, in essence, that the Court’s legal
conclusions that these two counts should be dismissed are simply wrong. “However, a
motion for reconsideration should not be used as a vehicle to present authorities available
at the time of the first decision or to reiterate arguments previously made.” Id. at 1384

(quotation and citation omitted).

Thus, the Court declines to reconsider its Order of

Dismissal of Counts VIII and XI.1
As for plaintiffs’ motion seeking to add facts to their complaint, they may do so as to
the claims the Court is permitting to go forward, but no new allegations may serve as a basis
to renew the claims the Court has dismissed with prejudice under the Court’s November 23,
2015 Order (Doc. 74).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order of Dismissal of Counts VIII and

XI (Doc. 75) is denied.
2.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint to Include Facts Ascertained in

Discovery (Doc. 76) is granted to the extent stated above and is otherwise denied.
3.

Plaintiffs shall file and serve their Second Amended Complaint in accordance

with the Court’s November 23, 2015 Order (Doc. 74) no later than March 1, 2016.
Defendants shall file and serve their response no later than March 21, 2016. The Court will
set a scheduling order for the rest of the case thereafter.

1

Nonetheless, the Court has reexamined the legal bases for its conclusions that Counts
VIII and XI are due to be dismissed with prejudice and stands by its analyses. See Order,
Doc. 74.
2

DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida this 5th day of February, 2016.

s.
Copies:
pro se plaintiffs
counsel of record

3