BETA UPSILON CHI UPSILON CHAPTER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA v. MACHEN et al

Filing 321

ORDER denying 297 Motion for Reconsideration of 254 Order Denying Motion for Taxation of Costs filed by Plaintiffs. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE STEPHAN P MICKLE on 7/24/2012. (jws)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
BETA UPSILON CHI, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CASE NO.: 1:07-CV-135-SPM/GRJ

J. BERNARD MACHEN, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration
of Order Denying Motion for Taxation of Costs and Supporting Memorandum of Law
(doc. 297) and Defendants’ reply (doc. 298). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’
motion will be denied.
Plaintiffs have requested reconsideration of the Court’s order denying the motion
for taxation of costs (doc. 254) pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 54, 60, and the mandate of
the Eleventh Circuit (doc. 288) finding that Plaintiffs were the prevailing party. However,
“a rule 60(b) motion cannot substitute for an appeal. A party who has made a voluntary
choice not to appeal from a judgment cannot be relieved from that choice under Rule
60(b).” Scutieri v. Paige, 808 F.2d 785, 795 (11th Cir. 1987); see also Parks v. United
States Life and Credit Corp., 677 F.2d 838, 840 (11th Cir. 1982) (stating that “[a] party
may not use Rule 60 as a substitute for a timely and proper appeal.”). Further,

although Rule 60(b)(1) allows a court to provide relief from an order based on a
mistake, Rule 60(c) requires that a motion filed based on a mistake be filed “no more
than a year after the entry of the . . . order.”
Plaintiffs’ failed to appeal the ruling and are not entitled to relief through a Rule
60(b) motion. Moreover, even if this Court did consider the motion for reconsideration,
it is untimely as it was not filed within one year of the entry of the order. The Order
denying Plaintiff’s request for taxation of costs was entered December 15, 2010. The
Eleventh Circuit decision on which Plaintiffs rely was issued on December 2, 2011.
Therefore, Plaintiffs had the opportunity to timely file a motion for reconsideration,
however, they failed to do so.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion for Taxation of Costs and Supporting
Memorandum of Law (doc. 297) is denied.
SO ORDERED this 24th day of July, 2012.

S/ Stephan P. Mickle
Stephan P. Mickle
Senior United States District Judge

2