Kirkland et al v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC et al

Filing 88

ORDER denying 81 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 8/20/2015. (KTW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
WILLIAM KIRKLAND and STANLEY
KIRKLAND,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 8:14-cv-1715-T-24TGW

MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC, ARNOLD
LANIER, ANDREW MCGUCKIN, JAMIE
WRIGHT, and MICHAEL LAKE.
Defendants.

ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Rehearing and Clarification
on the Court’s Order Granting Summary Judgment to Abbott, Dkt 80 (Dkt. 81), and Defendant
Thomas Ryan Abbott’s Response (Dkt. 82). The Court, having reviewed the motion, response, and
being otherwise advised, concludes that the motion should be denied.
I.

BACKGROUND
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case, Plaintiffs William Kirkland and Stanley Kirkland seek relief

for their allegedly unlawful arrests on July 16, 2010, and Defendants’ use of excessive force during
the arrests. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant Thomas Ryan Abbott participated in the unlawful
arrests of William Kirkland (“W. Kirkland”) and Stanley Kirkland (“S. Kirkland”) and used
excessive force against S. Kirkland during the course of his arrest.1
On February 6, 2015, Abbott filed a motion to dismiss Counts I and III the Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Dkt. 65). Abbott’s

1

A detailed discussion of the factual allegations contained in the First Amended Complaint is included in this
Court’s April 29, 2015 Order (Dkt. 71) (the “April 29, 2015 Order”).

motion requested the Court treat it as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
56. On April 29, 2015, the Court entered an order granting Abbott’s motion to dismiss as to W.
Kirkland’s unlawful arrest claim and converting the remainder of Abbott’s motion to a motion for
summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed a response to the converted motion for summary judgment on
June 1, 2015. On July 1, 2015, this Court entered an order granting Abbott’s motion for summary
judgment, finding that Abbott was entitled to qualified immunity on S. Kirkland’s unlawful arrest
and excessive force claims (the “July 1 Order”).
In the instant motion for rehearing and clarification, Plaintiffs request reconsideration of
the July 1 Order based upon Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
II.

DISCUSSION
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) provides that “any

order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights
and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties
and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment...” Thus, the Court has the authority
to reconsider the July 1 Order. See Harper v. Lawrence County, 592 F.3d 1227, 1231 (11th Cir.
2010) (holding that “[a] district court may reconsider and amend interlocutory orders at any time
before final judgment”).
Rule 54(b) does not specify the standard to be used by courts in exercising authority to
reconsider. Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Solutions, Inc., No. 6:09-CV-1968-ORL-19,
2011 WL 3841580, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2011) aff’d, 698 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
However, courts in this circuit have held that a motion for reconsideration should only be granted
if there is (1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) the
need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See e.g. Grupo Televisa, S.A. v. Telemundo

2

Commc’ns Grp., Inc., No. 04-20073-CIV-UNGARO, 2007 WL 4699017, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 12,
2007); Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, PA., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla.1994); Lamar
Adver. of Mobile, Inc. v. City of Lakeland, 189 F.R.D. 480, 489 (M.D. Fla.1999).
Furthermore, a motion for reconsideration does not provide an opportunity to simply
reargue, or argue for the first time, an issue the court has once determined. Riggins v. Polk Cnty.,
No. 8:12-CV-1755-T-17TBM, 2014 WL 3900264, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2014); see also Z.K.
Marine, Inc., v. M/V Archigetis, 808 F. Supp. 1561, 1563 (S.D. Fla.1992) (explaining that a motion
for reconsideration should not “be used as a vehicle to present authorities available at the time of
the first decision or to reiterate arguments previously made.”). Court opinions are not intended as
mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant’s pleasure. Id. (citing Quaker
Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus., Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill.1988)) (quotations omitted).
The moving party “must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court
to reverse its prior decision.” Sussman, 153 F.R.D. at 694.
Plaintiffs’ instant motion merely reargues the same issues previously raised in response to
Abbott’s motion for summary judgment and points to the same facts in support thereof. Plaintiffs
do not present previously unavailable evidence, nor do they assert that there has been an
intervening change in the controlling law with respect to their claims. As such, Plaintiffs’ attempt
to refute the basis for the Court’s earlier decision is a misuse of a motion to reconsider. See Lamar,
189 F.R.D. at 490. Furthermore, Plaintiffs fail to present legal authority showing that
reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error or manifest injustice. Thus, the Court concludes
that Plaintiffs have failed to meet the standard for reconsideration.

3

III.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Rehearing

and Clarification on the Court’s Order Granting Summary Judgment to Abbott, Dkt 80 (Dkt. 81)
is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 20th day of August, 2015.

Copies To: Counsel of Record and Parties

4