Guididas et al v. Community National Bank Corporation et al.

Filing 40

ORDER: Defendants' Partial Motion to Reconsider 31 is DENIED. Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Reply 39 is DENIED as moot. Defendants shall file an Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint within 10 days of this Order. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 7/24/2012. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

FRANK R. GUIDIDAS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:11-cv-2545-T-30TBM

COMMUNITY NATIONAL BANK
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants’ Partial Motion to Reconsider
(Dkt. 31) and Plaintiffs’ Response in opposition (Dkt. 36). The Court, having considered the
motion, response, and being otherwise advised of the premises, concludes that the motion
should be denied.
On May 10, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss/Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 29). Specifically, the Court
dismissed Counts II and III of Plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice. With respect to Count
I, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs stated a cause of action against Defendants for breach
of their fiduciary duties to prudently and loyally manage the ESOP Plan in violation of
ERISA, in light of the Eleventh Circuit’s May 8, 2012 opinion in Lanfear v. Home Depot,
Inc., 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012).

Defendants’ arguments in favor of reconsideration are not new; they were included
in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss/Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment and considered
by the Court at that time. In short, Defendants are not entitled to a second bite of the apple.
The Court concluded that Plaintiffs’ allegations (with respect to Count I) were sufficient to
state a claim against Defendants. The Court also concluded that summary judgment was
premature.1 To the extent that Defendants disagree with Plaintiffs’ allegations, they can
address these issues at the dispositive motion stage.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.

Defendants’ Partial Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. 31) is DENIED.

2.

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Reply (Dkt. 39) is DENIED as moot.

3.

Defendants shall file an Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint within ten (10) days
of this Order.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on July 24, 2012.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Odd\2011\11-cv-2545.reconsider31.wpd

1

The Court did not “misapprehend” the “precise counters of Defendants’ argument in favor of
summary judgment” as Defendants suggest in the instant motion. There is simply no support for Defendants’
position that the Court apply the arbitrary and capricious/abuse of discretion standard. This case is not a
claim for benefits.
Page 2 of 2