Lakeland Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Astellas US, LLC et al

Filing 166

ORDER denying 154 Motion for Reconsideration. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 1/14/2013. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
LAKELAND REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER, INC.,
Plaintiff,

Case No.: 8:10-cv-2008-T-33TGW

v.
ASTELLAS US, LLC and ASTELLAS
PHARMA US, INC.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court pursuant to Lakeland
Regional’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion
for Class Certification (Doc. # 154), filed on October 9,
2012.

Astellas filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion

(Doc. # 156) on October 25, 2012, and Lakeland Regional filed
a Reply, with leave of Court, on November 7, 2012. (Doc. #
159).

For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the

Motion for Reconsideration.
Discussion
It is within the Court's discretion to grant a motion for
reconsideration. Lussier v. Dugger, 904 F.2d 661, 667 (11th
Cir. 1990).

Arguments in favor of granting reconsideration

must be balanced against the desire to achieve finality in
litigation. Id.

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 under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e): “(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.
a

motion

for

reconsideration,

“[t]his

Court

In deciding
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.” Ludwig v. Liberty Mut.
Fire Ins. Co., Case No. 8:03-cv-2378-T-17-MAP, 2005 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 37718, at *8 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2005). 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. (Internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
-2-

Here, Lakeland Regional has failed to meet its burden of
demonstrating via facts or law of a strongly convincing nature
that reconsideration is required.

Lakeland Regional provides

this Court with a scholarly analysis of antitrust law and
presents creative arguments in an effort to convince this
Court that a change in the law is warranted.

This Court,

however, declines Lakeland Regional’s invitation to deviate
from the standards set forth in Illinois Brick

and its

progeny.1
In addition, Lakeland Regional has not come forward with
new evidence, nor has it demonstrated that reconsideration is
mandated to correct an error or to prevent manifest injustice.
This Court gave careful consideration to Lakeland Regional’s
motion for class certification and ultimately determined that
the motion should be denied.

Lakeland Regional’s instant

Motion for Reconsideration rehashes matters that have already
been decided.

Rather than providing a new perspective on the

issues, Lakeland Regional has, instead, reasserted its prior
arguments, which this Court has thoroughly addressed.

Thus,

the Court denies the Motion for Reconsideration.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
1

See Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720
(1977); Kansas v. Utilicorp United, Inc., 497 U.S. 199 (1990).
-3-

Lakeland Regional’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order
Denying Motion for Class Certification (Doc. # 154) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
14th day of January 2013.

Copies: All Counsel and Parties of Record

-4-