JONES III v. WALGREEN CO

Filing 155

ORDER: 153 Motion for Reconsideration of 152 Order on Motion to Set Aside filed by SAMUEL JONES III is DENIED. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE STEPHAN P MICKLE on 11/5/2012. (jws)

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
SAMUEL JONES III,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO.: 1:08cv185-SPM/GRJ

WALGREEN CO.
d/b/a WALGREENS,
Defendant.
_______________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from
Court’s Order Dated September 28, 2012. Doc. 153. For the following reasons,
the motion will be denied.
1.

The public interest in the finality of judgments and avoidance of

piecemeal litigation requires that limits be placed on parties seeking relief from
court orders. Thus it has long been established that motions for relief from
judgment should not be used “to raise arguments which could, and should, have
been made before the judgment was issued.” Lussier v. Dugger, 904 F.2d 661,
667 (11th Cir. 1990).
2.

“[W]here a party attempts to introduce previously unsubmitted

evidence on a motion to reconsider, the court should not grant the motion absent

Page 2 of 2

some showing that the evidence was not available during the pendency of the
motion.” Mays v. U.S. Postal Serv., 122 F.3d 43, 46 (11th Cir. 1997).
3.

Here, Plaintiff seeks to submit new evidence from his wife, mother,

and father that at the mediation conferences Mr. Thomas never discussed with
Plaintiff any settlement terms other than the dollar amount of the settlement and
the prohibition on reemployment.
4.

Plaintiff contends that it was not known that his wife, mother, and

father were present during the mediation conferences or had knowledge about
this matter. But Plaintiff should have known that they were present since Plaintiff
was also present.
5.

At no time during the weeks that passed after the hearing but

before the Court made its ruling did Plaintiff seek to submit the new evidence to
the Court.
6.

No satisfactory showing has been made why Plaintiff could not

have presented this evidence prior to the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s motion.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Court’s
Order Dated September 28, 2012 (doc. 153) is denied.
DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of November, 2012.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle
Stephan P. Mickle
Senior United States District Judge
CASE NO.: 1:08cv185-SPM/GRJ