Coleman v. Starbucks Coffee Company
Filing
95
ORDER denying 88 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 12/16/2015. (Smith, Thomas)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
DARLENE COLEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 6:14-cv-527-Orl-22TBS
STARBUCKS,
Defendant.
ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Darlene Coleman filed this case alleging racial discrimination and
retaliation by her former employer, Defendant Starbucks Corp. (Doc. 10). On September
28, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion titled “Starbucks and Their Lawyers Tampered and
Falsified Starbucks Partner Resource Reports Then They Submitted as Evidence for the
Trial and During the Pretrial Meeting they Committed Professional Misconduct” (Doc. 70).
In her prayer for relief she wrote: “Because of the Severity of Starbucks and their lawyers
illegal acts to cover up Starbucks Discrimination and Retaliation I Pray the courts rule in
my favor and I request the courts Recommend Starbucks return to Settlement
Conference and settle my case.” (Id., at 8). On October 16, 2015, the district judge
entered summary judgment for Starbucks but reserved jurisdiction to address Plaintiff’s
motion for sanctions (Docs. 74-75).
The Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion on November 9, 2015. At the
hearing, Plaintiff produced 69 additional pages of allegations and documents in support of
her motion for sanctions. The 69 additional pages are located at docket entry 83.
Plaintiff was given the opportunity to explain and argue her allegations of misconduct at
length. After hearing from Plaintiff and counsel for Starbucks, the Court denied Plaintiff’s
motion for sanctions, finding that she had failed to meet her burden of proof (Doc. 84).
On November 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion titled “Motion Requesting that all
papers that I gave to the courts at hearing be submitted to the docket.” (Doc. 85).
Plaintiff represented that she gave the Court Starbucks’ 60 page Partner Resource
Report at the hearing. Plaintiff’s motion was denied the following day because she failed
to ask the Court to mark any documents for identification or to admit any documents into
evidence at the hearing; the Court did not remember all of the documents it looked at
during the hearing; and it appears that the papers Plaintiff sought to file are already in the
record as an attachment to docket entry 70 (Doc. 87). The case is now before the Court
on Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the Orders denying her motion for sanctions (Doc. 84)
and denying her motion to file Starbucks’ Partner Resource Report (Doc. 87). Starbucks
opposes the motion (Doc. 94).
Plaintiff does not rely on any specific rule in her motion for reconsideration. Rule
59(e) provides a vehicle for retaining relief from a judgment. FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e). “A
Rule 59(e) motion must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.”
Rivero v. Taylor, 465 F. App'x 839, 840 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e)).
“The only grounds for granting a Rule 59(e) motion are the submission of newlydiscovered evidence or the demonstration of manifest error.” Id. (citing Arthur v. King,
500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007)). See also Offices Togolais Des Phosphates v.
Mulberry Phosphates, Inc., 62 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 1331 (M.D. Fla. 1999) (“There are three
grounds that justify granting a motion to alter or amend judgment: 1) an intervening
change in controlling law; 2) the availability of new evidence; or 3) the need to correct
clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”). “[A] Rule 59(e) motion [cannot be used] to
-2-
relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised
prior to the entry of judgment.” Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d
757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998)).
Another procedural vehicle for obtaining relief from a final judgment is Rule 60(b),
which provides six specific grounds for relief. Regardless of which rule Plaintiff relies on,
“[t]he Court's reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy.” Taylor
Woodrow Const. Corp. v. Sarasota/Manatee Airport Auth., 814 F. Supp. 1072, 1072
(M.D. Fla. 1993). “ʻA motion for reconsideration should raise new issues, not merely
readdress issues litigated previously.’” Am. Ass'n of People with Disabilities v. Hood,
278 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1339 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (quoting PaineWebber Income Props.
Three Ltd. P’ship v. Mobil Oil Corp., 902 F. Supp. 1514, 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1995)). “The
motion must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to demonstrate to the
Court the reason to reverse its prior decision.” Id. (citing Taylor Woodrow Const., 814 F.
Supp. 1072; PaineWebber, 902 F. Supp. at 1521).
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration summarizes the November 9, 2015 hearing
and makes many of the same arguments she previously presented. See Docs. 51, 62,
70, 76, 88. Plaintiff thinks Starbucks’ Partner Resource Report contains false
information and that Starbucks and its attorneys falsified the report to cover up Starbucks’
alleged racial discrimination and retaliation. Plaintiff disagrees with the content of the
report and Starbucks’ motion for summary judgment, and she is certain that she gave the
Court a copy of the Partner Resource Report during the November 9, 2015 hearing. She
represents that she offered proof that documents were cut and pasted into the Partner
Resource Report and she again complains about the report not having page numbers.
She “ask[s] the courts to hold Starbucks responsible for Racially Discriminating and
-3-
Retaliating against me and Starbucks and their lawyers for Unethical and Illegal Conduct
for Tampering and Falsifying the Partner Resource Report to cover it up.” (Doc. 88, p.
12).
The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions because she failed to meet her
burden of proving her allegations by clear and convincing evidence and that has not
changed. She disagrees with this determination and reasserts many of the same
arguments she made at the hearing. These arguments are without merit for the reasons
discussed in the previous Order (Doc. 84). Plaintiff takes issue with the Order denying
her motion because it did not cite all of her arguments and evidence presented at the
hearing, but there is no requirement to do so. The Court addressed portions of Plaintiff’s
arguments and evidence as “examples to illustrate some of the flaws in Ms. Coleman’s
reasoning.” (Id. at p. 11).
With regard to Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the Order denying her motion to
include the Partner Resource Report in the documents that were tendered during the
November 9, 2015 hearing, she has not offered any new evidence or arguments that
were not presented in her original motion and it appears that the document she is
referring to already appears at docket entry 70. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to
reconsider (Doc. 88) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on December 16, 2015.
Copies furnished to:
Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of Record
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?