Lamberth v. Fountains of Millenia IV, LLP

Filing 12

ORDER denying 10 Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, which this Court construes as a Motion for Reconsideration of 8 the Court's Order. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Paul G. Byron on 4/26/2024. (REG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
In Re: Tiffany Lamberth
TIFFANY LAMBERTH,
Appellant,
v.

Case No: 6:24-cv-490-PGB

FOUNTAINS OF MILLENIA IV,
LLP,
Appellee.

/
ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on pro se Appellant Tiffany Lamberth’s
(“Appellant”) filing entitled Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (Doc. 10 (the
“Motion for Reconsideration”)), which this Court construes as a request for
reconsideration of its prior Order denying Appellant’s initial request for such a
stay. 1 (See Doc. 8). The Court does not require a response to the Motion for
Reconsideration. Upon due consideration, the Motion for Reconsideration will be
denied.

1

The Court notes that “pro se pleadings are liberally construed” and courts “look beyond the
label of the pleadings to determine whether they are properly characterized.” United States v.
Cordero, 7 F.4th 1058, 1068 n.11 (11th Cir. 2021); see, e.g., United States v. Stossel, 348 F.3d
1320, 1322 n.2 (11th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the Court construes the document entitled
“Motion for Stay Pending Appeal” as a motion requesting reconsideration of the Court’s prior
Order denying this relief. (See Doc. 8).

I.

BACKGROUND
On March 12, 2024, Appellant filed a request that this Court stay several

bankruptcy court Orders pending the resolution of the instant appeal. (Doc. 5 (the
“Original Motion for Stay”)). This Court denied the Original Motion for Stay
under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8007, finding that two separate
grounds warranted this outcome. (Doc. 8). More specifically, the Court found that:
(1) Appellant had failed to establish that moving for a stay in the bankruptcy court
was impracticable, and (2) Appellant had failed to attach to the request either
“affidavits or other sworn statements supporting facts subject to dispute” or the
“relevant parts of the record.” (See Doc. 8 (internal citations omitted)).
The Motion for Reconsideration is identical to the Original Motion for Stay
in nearly every respect, except that Appellant has attached exhibits to the Motion
for Reconsideration, including a one-page document that is purportedly a sworn
statement by Appellant, as well as several records from the bankruptcy court. (See
Docs. 5, 10, 10-1, 10-2, 10-3).
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
A court’s reconsideration of a prior order is an “extraordinary remedy” that

should be used “sparingly.” Taylor Woodrow Constr. Corp. v. Sarasota/Manatee
Airport Auth., 814 F. Supp. 1072, 1072–73 (M.D. Fla. 1993); accord Griffin v.
Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F.2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984). Such a motion may arise
under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). See FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e), 60(b).

2

Under either Rule, a motion to reconsider cannot be used to “relitigate old
matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised [earlier].”
Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005);
accord Imperato v. Hartford Ins. Co., 803 F. App’x 229, 231 (11th Cir. 2020) (per
curiam). 2 It is wholly inappropriate in a motion for reconsideration to “vent
dissatisfaction with the Court’s reasoning.” Madura v. BAC Home Loans Servicing
L.P., No. 8:11-cv-2511, 2013 WL 4055851, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2013) (citation
omitted). Instead, the moving party must set forth “strongly convincing” reasons
for the Court to change its prior decision. Id. at *1. Thus, to prevail on a motion to
reconsider, the movant must identify “manifest errors of law or fact” or
extraordinary circumstances. Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007)
(quotation omitted). 3
III.

DISCUSSION
Here, the Court finds that Appellant has not met the high bar for

reconsideration of its Order denying Appellant’s Original Motion for Stay. (See
Doc. 10). In particular, the Court finds that nothing in the Motion for
Reconsideration aids Appellant in establishing that moving for a stay in the

2

“Unpublished opinions are not controlling authority and are persuasive only insofar as their
legal analysis warrants.” Bonilla v. Baker Concrete Const., Inc., 487 F.3d 1340, 1345 (11th Cir.
2007).

3

Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy which will only be granted upon a showing of one
of the following: (1) an intervening change in law, (2) the discovery of new evidence which was
not available at the time the Court rendered its decision, or (3) the need to correct clear error
or manifest injustice. Fla. Coll. of Osteopathic Med., Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 12 F.
Supp. 2d 1306, 1308 (M.D. Fla. 1998).

3

bankruptcy court was impracticable. (See id.); FED. R. BANKR. P. 8007(b).
Accordingly, Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration is due to be denied.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration

(Doc. 10) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on April 26, 2024.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

4