MB REO-FL Church-2, LLC v. Tampa For Christ Church, Inc. et al
Filing
82
ORDER denying 69 Motion to Vacate; denying 71 Motion for Leave to File. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 7/22/2016. (DRW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MB REO-FL CHURCH-2, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 8:16-cv-276-T-33AEP
TAMPA FOR CHRIST CHURCH, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
Defendants
Tampa
for
Christ
Church,
Inc.
and
Frank
M.
Bafford’s Motions; in particular, their “Second Motion to
Alter or Amend Order (Doc. #65),” filed on June 30, 2016,
(Doc. # 69), and their “Motion for Leave to File a General
Notice or An Amended Notice of Lis Pendens in the Hillsborough
County Circuit Court,” filed on July 1, 2016, (Doc. # 71).
Plaintiff
MB
Reo-FL
Church-2,
LLC
filed
a
response
in
opposition to the Second Motion to Alter or Amend on July 18,
2016. (Doc. # 77). MB Reo has not filed a response to the
Motion for Leave to File. For the reasons herein, the Court
denies the Motions.
Discussion
1
Following
an
unsuccessful
attempt
to
purchase
real
estate from MB Reo, Bafford recorded a document in the
official land records of Hillsborough County on December 14,
2015, by which he sought to “inform[] all interested parties
that
there’s
concerning
a
the
pending
housing
properties
discrimination
listed
below
complaint
seeking
a
determination concerning this rights to the properties.”
(Doc. # 1-14). Bafford subsequently amended his document on
December 28, 2015. (Doc. ## 1-15, 52-1 at 4).
MB Reo thereafter instituted this action seeking to,
among other things, quiet title and for declaratory judgment.
(Doc. # 1). After mediation resulted in an impasse, MB Reo
moved to dissolve Bafford’s documents, which MB Reo argued
were the functional equivalents of notices of lis pendens.
(Doc. # 52). Bafford and Tampa for Christ Church responded in
opposition. (Doc. # 58). By an Order dated June 24, 2016, the
Court granted MB Reo’s motion. (Doc. # 65).
Bafford and Tampa for Christ Church now move the Court
to “construe the City of Tampa Office of Human Rights . . .
to be a ‘lower tribunal,’ and ‘court,’ as defined in Rule
9.020 (d) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.” (Doc.
# 69 at 1). Although Bafford and Tampa for Christ Church do
not cite the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure under which they
2
have moved the Court to alter or amend its June 24, 2016,
Order, the Court construes the Motion as being filed under
Rule 59 because the Motion was filed within 28 days of the
Court’s June 24, 2016, Order. See Beach Terrace Condo. Ass’n,
Inc. v. Goldring Invs., No. 8:15–cv–1117–T–33TBM, 2015 WL
4548721, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 28, 2015) (noting a motion
filed within 28 days of the entry of a judgment is governed
by Rule 59(e), whereas a motion filed after the 28-day window
is governed by Rule 60).
“Pursuant
to
Rule
59(e),
a
court
is
vested
with
discretion to reconsider an order which it has entered.”
United States v. Barnes, No. 3:08–cv–966–J–34MCR, 2012 WL
3194419, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 5, 2012) (citations omitted).
“The only grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newlydiscovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” Arthur
v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation and
original alteration omitted). Furthermore, “[a] Rule 59(e)
motion
cannot
be
used
to
relitigate
old
matters,
raise
arguments or present evidence that could have been raised
prior to the entry of judgment.” Id. (citation and original
alterations omitted).
The Second Motion to Alter or Amend is merely an attempt
to relitigate matters previously considered by this Court.
3
Bafford
and
Tampa
for
Christ
Church
were
afforded
the
opportunity to——and did——file a response to MB Reo’s motion
that sought to dissolve the documents filed by Bafford. In
their response, however, Bafford and Tampa for Christ Church
did not raise the argument now asserted. That alone is
sufficient to deny the Second Motion to Alter or Amend. See
Crown Auto Dealership v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 8:12-CV1367-T-17TGW, 2014 WL 412757, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 3, 2014)
(“Court opinions are ‘not intended as mere first drafts,
subject
to
revision
and
reconsideration
at
a
litigant’s
pleasure.’”) (citation omitted).
Furthermore, the argument now asserted by Bafford and
Tampa for Christ Church, namely that Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.020 supports a conclusion that an administrative
agency is defined as a court, is belied by the plain language
of the Rule itself. The Court notes, as a preliminary matter,
that Bafford and Tampa for Christ Church incorrectly cite
Rules 9.020(a) and (d) as the operative Rules when, in fact,
Rules 9.020(c) and (e) define “court” and “lower tribunal,”
respectively.
Rule 9.020(c) defines “court” as “[t]he supreme court;
the district courts of appeal; and the circuit courts in the
exercise of the jurisdiction described by rule 9.030(c) . .
4
. . Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(c). Thus, anything other than the
Supreme Court of Florida, the district courts of appeal, and
the circuit courts in the exercise of jurisdiction described
by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(c) is not a
“court.” As such, the Second Motion to Alter or Amend is
denied.
In addition, the Motion for Leave to File, which is
functionally a continuation of the Second Motion to Alter or
Amend, does not contain a memorandum of law as required by
Local Rule 3.01(a). Further problematic is the fact Bafford
and Tampa for Christ Church have not provided a copy of the
document they seek to file in the land records of Hillsborough
County and, as a result, the Court cannot determine whether
such a document falls under Section 28.222(3)(a), Florida
Statutes. Therefore, the Motion for Leave to File is denied.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)
Defendants Tampa for Christ Church, Inc. and Frank M.
Bafford’s “Second Motion to Alter or Amend Order (Doc.
#65),” (Doc. # 69), is DENIED.
(2) Defendants Tampa for Christ Church, Inc. and Frank M.
Bafford’s “Motion for Leave to File a General Notice of
5
An Amended Notice of Lis Pendens in the Hillsborough
County Circuit Court,” (Doc. # 71), is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
22nd day of July, 2016.
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?