Robertson v. ADA Alliance Data Systems, Inc.
Filing
312
ORDER: Plaintiffs Douglas B. Stalley, in his capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gary Robertson, and Jeremiah Hallback's Motion for Rehearing and/or Reconsideration of Order Denying Third Motion for Class Certification and Request for Oral Argument 308 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 12/16/2013. (KNC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DOUGLAS B. STALLEY, in his
capacity as Personal Representative
of the Estate of Gary Robertson
and JEREMIAH HALLBACK, individually,
and on behalf of all those similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 8:11-cv-1652-T-33TBM
ADS ALLIANCE DATA SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court in consideration of
Plaintiffs Douglas B. Stalley, in his capacity as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Gary Robertson, and Jeremiah
Hallback’s Motion for Rehearing and/or Reconsideration of
Order
Denying
Third
Motion
for
Class
Certification
and
Request for Oral Argument (Doc. # 308), filed on December 9,
2013. Defendant ADS Alliance Data Systems, Inc. filed a
response in opposition to the Motion (Doc. # 311) on December
12, 2013. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies
Stalley and Hallback’s Motion and request for oral argument.
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).
reconsideration
must
Arguments
be
in
balanced
achieve finality in litigation.
College
of
Osteopathic
favor
against
Id.
Medicine,
of
the
granting
desire
to
As stated in Florida
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.”
finality
and
conservation
Further, “in the interests of
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. In deciding
a
motion
for
reconsideration,
2
“[t]his
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.”
Ludwig v. Liberty Mut.
Fire Ins. Co., No. 8:03-cv-2378-T-17MAP, 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 omitted).
In the present Motion, Stalley and Hallback request that
this Court reconsider its Order denying the Third Motion for
Class
Certification
and
further
request
pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(j). (Doc. # 308).
oral
argument
Specifically,
Stalley and Hallback argue that “the issues in the case are
proper for class treatment, and request [this Court give]
additional consideration to preserve Plaintiffs’ and the
Class’ rights.” (Id. at 2). To support their request, Stalley
and Hallback submit that “this Court may have overlooked
certain points of law or fact that conflated the issues of
notice,
ascretainability,
liability,
applied to the proposed Class.” (Id.).
and
superiority
as
Therefore, Stalley
and Hallback invite this Court to reconsider (1) its decision
that prior consent cannot be a class-wide issue because of
the numerous methods that prior consent could have been
3
provided by the members of the Class and (2) its decision
that the Class is not ascertainable because it is not clear
how a recipient of a call from ADS can be identified. (Id. at
2-3).
In its response, ADS argues that although “[Stalley and
Hallback] have titled the motion as seeking relief under the
heading
‘reconsideration’
standards
that
this
Court
.
.
has
.
they
wholly
repeatedly
ignore
articulated
the
as
governing motions for reconsideration.” (Doc. # 311 at 2).
The Motion “makes clear that [Stalley and Hallback] are not
asking this Court to change its mind for any of the reasons
established at law to support the extraordinary relief they
seek.” (Id. at 3). In fact, “Plaintiffs fail to cite any
[r]ule or other foundation . . . and fail to set forth any
standard for granting such relief.” (Id. at 2).
In the case of the present Motion, the Court finds that
Stalley and Hallback have failed to meet their burden of
demonstrating the grounds necessary to allow this Court to
reconsider its Order denying the Third Motion for Class
Certification. (See Doc. # 304). Stalley and Hallback do not
assert that there has been an intervening change in the law
and present no new evidence. In addition, Stalley and Hallback
fail to demonstrate that reconsideration is necessary to
4
prevent manifest injustice or clear error. Instead, Stalley
and Hallback provide this Court with additional in-depth
analysis in an attempt to relitigate issues already decided
by the Court.
The Court stands behind its November 25, 2013, Order
(Doc. # 304), which denied Stalley and Hallback’s Third Motion
for
Class
Certification.
This
Court
gave
careful
consideration to the Third Motion for Class Certification and
ultimately determined that the motion should be denied. The
Court there held, as it does today, that Stalley and Hallback
“failed to demonstrate that this action falls within one of
the three categories of class suits described in Rule 23(b),
and [Stalley and Hallback] have failed to show that the
proposed
class
is
clearly
ascertainable.”
(Id.).
Thus,
Stalley and Hallback’s present Motion is due to be denied.
In
addition,
the
Court
acknowledges
Stalley
and
Hallback’s request for oral argument on the present Motion.
However, in light of the Court’s above-mentioned findings,
this Court denies Stalley and Hallback’s request for oral
argument on this matter.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
5
Plaintiffs
Douglas
B.
Stalley,
in
his
capacity
as
Personal Representative of the Estate of Gary Robertson, and
Jeremiah
Hallback’s
Reconsideration
of
Motion
Order
Denying
for
Third
Rehearing
and/or
Motion
Class
for
Certification and Request for Oral Argument (Doc. # 308) is
DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
16th day of December, 2013.
Copies to: All Counsel of Record
6
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?