The Estate of Juanita Amelia Jackson v. Sandnes et al

Filing 136

ORDER denying 131 Motion for Reconsideration. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 5/28/2015. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
DIVISION
THE ESTATE OF JUANITA AMELIA
JACKSON, BY AND THROUGH CATHY
JACKSON-PLATTS, FORMERLY KNOWN AS
CATHERINE WHATLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:13-cv-1133-T-33MAP

MICHAEL SANDNES, ET AL.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff
the

Estate

of

Juanita

Amelia

Jackson’s

Motion

for

Reconsideration of Endorsed Order Directing the Clerk to Close
this Case Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and
60 (Doc. # 131), which was filed on May 4, 2015.

On May 18,

2015, Defendants Alan M. Grochal, Michael Sandnes, and Tydings
& Rosenberg, LLP filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion.
(Doc. # 132).

Thereafter, on May 21, 2015, Defendants GTCR

Fund VI, L.P., GTCR Golder Rauner, LLC, and GTCR Partners VI,
L.P. filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion. (Doc. #
133).

On May 21, 2015, Defendants General Electric Capital

Corporation, Ventas Realty, L.P. and Ventas, Inc. notified the
Court of their intention to join in the Response filed on
behalf of the GTCR Defendants. (Doc. ## 134, 135).

The Court

denies the Motion for Reconsideration for the reasons that
follow.
I.

Background
On April 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed a two count complaint

against

the

Defendants

alleging

“deprivation

of

rights

under the civil rights act” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count 1)
and civil conspiracy under Florida law (Count 2). (Doc. # 1).
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on February 21, 2014.
(Doc. # 104). On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to
Stay Proceedings based on the pendency of a related bankruptcy
case and other matters.

(Doc. # 109).

The Court granted the

Motion to Stay on April 8, 2014, and directed the Clerk to
stay and administratively close the case. (Doc. # 124). In so
staying and administratively closing the case, the Court
required the parties to file a status report on June 30, 2014,
and every 90 days thereafter. (Id.).
On June 30, 2014, the GTCR Defendants, the Ventas
Defendants, and General Electric Capital Corp. filed a status
report

explaining,

inter

alia,

that

“[t]he

bankruptcy

proceeding, In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc., No. 8:11bk-22258-MGW, adversary proceeding 8:13-ap-893, is proceeding
toward trial.” (Doc. # 125 at 1).

Thereafter, on September

29, 2014, all Defendants filed an additional status report

-2-

indicating, with respect to the relevant bankruptcy case,
that: “The bankruptcy court (Honorable Michael G. Williamson)
granted summary judgment in favor of defendants GECC and
Ventas on September 8, 2014.

Trial began on September 22 and

is scheduled to end on October 3, with the exception of one
witness who will testify on October 27.” (Doc. # 126 at 1).
On September 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed a status report
joining in the Defendants’ status report filed on September
29,

2014

(Doc.

#

126)

and

adding

that

a

Motion

for

Reconsideration of the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment
order was filed on September 20, 2014. (Doc. # 127).

On

December 29, 2014, the GTCR Defendants filed a status report
explaining that the trial concluded in the bankruptcy court on
November 18, 2014, and that “[o]n December 16, 2014, the
bankruptcy court announced its tentative ruling from the
bench,

finding

in

favor

of

the

GTCR

Entities

and

two

additional GTCR-related entities. . . . [T]he bankruptcy court
found in Plaintiffs’ favor against other defendants (which are
not parties here), and the bankruptcy court ordered those
defendants and Plaintiffs to mediate by January 31, 2015.”
(Doc. # 128 at 2).
Thereafter, in a detailed status report dated March 27,
2015, the GTCR Defendants, the Ventas Defendants, and General
Electric Capital Corp. explained that the bankruptcy court
-3-

permanently enjoined Plaintiff “from moving forward with its
claims in this litigation.” (Doc. # 129 at 2).

Plaintiff did

not file a response, a status report reflecting additional
information, or any other challenge to the representations
contained within the March 27, 2015, status report.

In fact,

the record reflects that the only status report that Plaintiff
has submitted since the Order staying the case was filed on
September 30, 2014. (Doc. # 127).

Accordingly, on April 6,

2015, the Court entered an Order directing the clerk to close
the case based on the bankruptcy court’s order permanently
barring and enjoining the present litigation. (Doc. # 130).
At this juncture, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the
Court’s decision to close the case.
II.

Legal Standard
Plaintiff’s Motion for reconsideration will be decided

under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as
it was filed within 28 days of the Order directing case
closure.

Ludwig v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., Case No.

8:03-cv-2378-T-17-MAP, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37718, at *6
(M.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2005).
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

-4-

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.

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).
III. Analysis
Plaintiff indicates that “[r]econsideration is necessary
to correct a clear error of law, prevent manifest injustice,

-5-

and prevent a substantial injustice and inequity that would
result if the Endorsed Order were to continue in effect.”
(Doc. # 131 at 2).

Plaintiff explains that: “entry of the

permanent injunction was a condition of the bankruptcy court’s
approval of proposed compromises between the probate estate
plaintiffs,

including

the

Jackson

Estate,

the

Chapter

7

Trustee, and certain defendants in the adversary proceeding
(collectively, ‘settling parties’).” (Id. at 2-3).

However,

Plaintiff remarks that the parties “have not yet reached a
final compromise” and various parties have filed appeals of
relevant bankruptcy court orders, as well as motions for
reconsideration. (Id. at 3).
In response to the present Motion for Reconsideration,
Defendants persuasively argue that the bankruptcy court’s
“permanent injunction remains in full force and effect.” (Doc.
# 133).

Defendants suggest that, “[i]n the unlikely event

that the permanent injunction is modified in a way that would
allow

plaintiff

to

proceed

with

its

claims

here,

then

plaintiff could, at that time, return to this Court and move
to reopen the case.” (Id.). However, as argued by Defendants,
“Plaintiff’s speculation about changes that plaintiff hopes a
court might make to a permanent injunction in the future
provides no basis for reconsideration.” (Id.).

The Court

agrees with Defendants that the better course of action is to
-6-

close

the

present

case,

which

has

been

bankruptcy court’s permanent injunction.

barred

by

the

The Court is not

persuaded that an Order of reconsideration is needed to
prevent manifest injustice or to correct an error of law.
Instead, as posited by Defendants, Plaintiff should seek an
Order to reopen this case only if the bankruptcy court lifts
or

modifies

the

injunction

applicable

to

this

action.

Otherwise, this Court sees no reason to maintain this case on
its

pending

docket.

The

Motion

for

Reconsideration

is

therefore denied.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Endorsed Order
Directing the Clerk to Close this Case Pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60 (Doc. # 131) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 28th
day of May, 2015.

Copies: All Counsel of Record

-7-