Paylan v. Habana Hospital Pharmacy, Inc. et al

Filing 39

ORDER denying 37 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 3/7/2016. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

CHRISTINA PAYLAN, MD,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO: 8:15-CV-2720-T-30JSS

HABANA HOSPITAL PHARMACY, INC.,
STEPHANIE BROOKS, RONDA DYKES,
WALTER DYKES, and DOES,
Defendants.
____________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
of the Court’s Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 37) and Defendants’
Response in Opposition (Dkt. 38). The Court, having reviewed the motion, response, and
being otherwise fully advised in the premises, concludes that Plaintiff’s motion should be
denied.
Motions for reconsideration are permitted when there is (1) an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or
manifest injustice. See Tristar Lodging, Inc. v. Arch Speciality Ins. Co., 434 F. Supp. 2d
1286, 1301 (M.D. Fla. 2006) aff’d sub nom. by Tristar Lodging, Inc. v. Arch Specialty Ins.
Co., 215 Fed. App’x. 879 (11th Cir. 2007). A motion for reconsideration must demonstrate
why the court should reconsider its prior decision and “set forth facts or law of a strongly

convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted). A motion for reconsideration cannot be used to re-litigate old matters, raise
new arguments, or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of
judgment. See Parker v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 874 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1359 (M.D. Fla.
2012); see also Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007). “The decision to alter
or amend a judgment is an ‘extraordinary remedy.’” Tristar Lodging, Inc., 434 F. Supp. 2d
at 1301.
Plaintiff’s motion seeks to re-litigate the issues; she offers nothing new to convince
the Court to alter its decision that her RICO and section 1985 claims are barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 37) is
denied.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on March 7, 2016.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Even\2015\15-cv-2720 mt-reconsider-37-deny.wpd

-2-