Tilborg v. Capstone Credit & Collections, LLC

Filing 63

ORDER denying 62 Motion for reconsideration. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/22/2011. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
DIVISION
VIRGINIA TILBORG,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 8:10-cv-1600-T-33TGW

CAPSTONE CREDIT & COLLECTIONS,
LLC,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court pursuant to Defendant’s
“Motion for Reconsideration/Alter Order RE: DE 36" (Doc. #
62), which was filed on September 21, 2011.

For the reasons

that follow, the Court denies the Motion.
II.

Legal Standard
As stated in

Florida College of Osteopathic Medicine,

Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1308
(M.D.

Fla.

1998),

“A

motion

for

reconsideration

must

demonstrate why the court should reconsider its past decision
and set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to
induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” Further, “in
the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial
resources, reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be
employed sparingly.” Lamar Adver. of Mobile, Inc. v. City of
Lakeland, 189 F.R.D. 480, 489 (M.D. Fla. 1999).

This

Court

recognizes

three

grounds

to

justify

reconsideration of a prior order: “(1) an intervening change
in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and
(3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.”
Fla. College of Osteopathic Med., Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d at
1308.

Further, as explained in Ludwig, 2005 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 37718, at *8, “This Court will not reconsider its
judgment when the motion for reconsideration fails to raise
new issues but, instead, relitigates that which the Court
previously found lacking.” Id. at 9-10.

In addition, “a

motion for reconsideration is not the proper forum for the
party to vent dissatisfaction with the Court’s reasoning.” Id.
at 11. (citation omitted).
II.

Analysis
Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Court’s March 23,

2011, Order granting a Motion to Substitute Party. (Doc. #
37).

The Motion to Substitute Party was filed on March 2,

2011, (Doc. # 36), and this Court granted the Motion to
Substitute as an unopposed motion after Defendant failed to
file a response.
Now, six months later, Defendant seeks an order of
reconsideration.

Defendant does not assert that there has

been an intervening change in the law and presents no new

-2-

evidence.

In

addition,

Defendant

does

not

assert

that

reconsideration is needed to prevent manifest injustice or to
correct a clear error.
Tilborg’s

standing

to

Rather, Defendant challenges Virginia
pursue

the

Practices Act claims at issue.

Fair

Debt

Collection

It should be noted that

Defendant filed a timely Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #
57) raising standing issues identical to the issues presented
in the Motion for Reconsideration.
As the Motion for Summary Judgment is fully briefed by
the parties, the Court determines that it would be an exercise
in futility to require Plaintiff to respond to the merits of
the

Reconsideration

Motion.

The

Court

denies

the

Reconsideration Motion and will address the substantive issues
raised therein when the Court addresses the pending Motion for
Summary Judgment.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Defendant’s “Motion for Reconsideration/Alter Order RE:
DE 36" (Doc. # 62) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 22nd
day of September, 2011.

-3-

Copies: All Counsel of Record

-4-