Schwarz et al v. Board of Supervisors et al

Filing 187

ORDER denying 185 Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 11/17/2015. (JW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
LOUIS SCHWARZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Case No. 5:12-cv-177-Oc-34PRL

THE VILLAGES CHARTER SCHOOL, INC.,
d/b/a The Villages Lifelong Learning College,
et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No.
185; Motion) filed on October 30, 2015. In the Motion, Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of this
Court’s Order (Dkt. No. 182) on the summary judgment motions.

See Motion at 1.

Specifically, Plaintiffs assert that if the Court had not overlooked material factual and legal
information, it would have concluded that the Districts should be liable for the actions of the
Resident Lifestyle Groups under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. See generally
id.

Defendants filed a response on November 12, 2015.

See The Village Center

Community Development District, and Sumter Landing Community Development District’s
Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 186; Response). In the
Response, these Defendants argue that the Motion should be denied because Plaintiffs
have failed to show a change in the law, new evidence, or any error by the Court which
would warrant reconsideration. See generally Response.

A motion to alter or amend a judgment may be filed pursuant to Rule 59(e), which
affords the Court substantial discretion to reconsider an order which it has entered. See
Mincey v. Head, 206 F.3d 1106, 1137 (11th Cir. 2000); O’Neal v. Kennamer, 958 F.2d
1044, 1047 (11th Cir. 1992). “The only grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newlydiscovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343
(11th Cir. 2007) (quotations and citations omitted). This Court has interpreted those
parameters to include “(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new
evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” Lamar Advertising
of Mobile, Inc. v. City of Lakeland, Fla., 189 F.R.D. 480, 489 (M.D. Fla. 1999). For example,
reconsideration may be appropriate where “the Court has patently misunderstood a party.”
O’Neill v. The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 243 F.R.D. 469, 483 (S.D. Fla. 2006).
Rule 59(e), however, cannot be used “to relitigate old matters, raise argument or
present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Michael Linet,
Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005). Additionally, motions
to alter or amend “should not be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have
been made before the judgment was issued.” O’Neal, 958 F.2d at 1047 (quotations and
citations omitted). Indeed, permitting a party to raise new arguments on a motion for
reconsideration “essentially affords a litigant ‘two bites of the apple.’” American Home
Assurance Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assocs., Inc., 763 F.2d 1237, 1239 (11th Cir. 1985); see
also Mincey, 206 F.3d at 1137 n.69 (citation omitted); Mays, 122 F.3d at 46 (“a motion to
reconsider should not be used by the parties to set forth new theories of law”). As such, the
Eleventh Circuit has held that the “[d]enial of a motion for reconsideration is especially sound
-2-

when the party has failed to articulate any reason for the failure to raise the issue at an
earlier stage of the litigation.” Sanderlin v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., 243 F.3d 1282, 1292
(11th Cir. 2001) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Moreover, “[w]hen evaluating a
motion to reconsider, a court should proceed cautiously, realizing that ‘in the interests of
finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources, reconsideration of a previous order is
an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly.’” United States v. Bailey, 288 F. Supp.
2d 1261, 1267 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (citation omitted).
Upon review of the Motion and Response, the Court determines that the Motion is
due to be denied. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 185) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, this 17th day of November, 2015.

ja
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-3-