Managed Care Solutions, Inc. v. Essent Healthcare, Inc.

Filing 358

ORDER denying 350 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan on 7/13/2011. (mkr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 09-60351-CIV-SEITZ/O'SULLIVAN
MANAGED CARE SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ESSENT HEALTHCARE, INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion for Rehearing and/or
Reconsideration of Order Dated June 27, 2011 [D.E. 346] Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) (DE# 350, 7/11/11) filed by the plaintiff. On October 6, 2010, the defendant filed a
motion for attorney’s fees, costs and expenses against the plaintiff. See Defendant’s
Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and Expenses and Memorandum of Law in
Support Thereof (DE# 298, 10/6/10). The parties consented to magistrate judge
jurisdiction for the final disposition of this motion. See Order Following September 22,
2010 Status Conference, Granting Motion for Default, and Referring Motion on
Attorney’s Fees and Sanctions to Magistrate Judge (DE# 293 at 3, 9/23/10). Following
extensive briefing, the undersigned issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
the Defendant’s Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and Expenses and
Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof (DE# 298, 10/6/10). See Order (DE# 346,
6/27/11).1 The plaintiff now seeks rehearing and reconsideration of the Court’s Order
1

On the sam e day, the undersigned also issued a Report and Recom m endation recom m ending
that the Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff Managed Care Solutions, Inc.; Robert Ingham ,
Esq.; Ingham & Associates, P.A.; Jonathan J. W arrick, Esq.; The Law Office of Jonathan W arrick, P.A.;
and Raphael Baruch and Mem orandum of Law in Support Thereof (DE# 299, 10/6/10) be granted in part
and denied in part. See Report and Recom m endation (DE# 347, 6/27/11). The plaintiff, the defendant and
Mr. Ingham have filed objections to this Report and Recom m endation.

(DE# 346).
Generally, there are three grounds justifying reconsideration of a prior order: (1)
an intervening change in controlling law; (2) availability of new evidence; and (3) the
need to correct clear error or manifest injustice. Wendy’s International, Inc. v. Nu-Cape
Construction, Inc., 169 F.R.D. 680, 684 (M.D. Fla. 1996). The plaintiff seeks
reconsideration on the ground that holding “the Plaintiff liable for the attorneys’ fees,
costs, and expenses incurred by the Defendant as a result of [former counsel Robert]
Ingham’s bad faith conduct is manifestly unjust to the Plaintiff.” Motion for Rehearing
and/or Reconsideration of Order Dated June 27, 2011 [D.E. 346] Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b) (DE# 350 at 3, 7/11/11). The plaintiff asks that the undersigned vacate the
prior Order (DE# 346) and that the amount the plaintiff owes the defendant be reduced
by the sanctions to be imposed against Mr. Ingham and any sanctions to be imposed
on Mr. Warrick. Id. at 4-5.2
Motions for reconsideration are strongly disfavored. The Court previously
considered the merits of the Defendant’s Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees, Costs,
and Expenses and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof (DE# 298, 10/6/10). In
opposing the defendant’s fee request, the plaintiff argued that:
The Plaintiff respectfully submits that it is the victim of gross negligence
on behalf of its prior counsel which has effectively prevented the Plaintiff
from presenting its case and proceeding on the merits of its claims. The
Plaintiff further submits that it has not attempted to, nor endeavored to: (1)
engage in any bad faith conduct; (2) withhold any evidence from the
Defendant; (3) stonewall any defense the Defendants may have to the

2

The plaintiff requests that the undersigned refrain from ruling on the instant m otion until Judge
Seitz issues her ruling on the Report and Recom m endation to avoid inconsistent rulings. See Motion for
Rehearing and/or Reconsideration of Order Dated June 27, 2011 [D.E. 346] Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) (DE# 350 at 4, 7/11/11). There is no reason to delay a ruling on the instant m otion because the
instant m otion will be denied.

claims raised by the Plaintiff; (4) try this case by ambush; (5) violate any
court order; or (6) violate the Federal Rules and Local Rules of this
Honorable Court.
Response in Opposition to Motion for Sanctions and Motion for Award of Attorney’s
Fees, Costs and Expenses (DE# 316 at 1-2, 11/12/10). The Court soundly rejected
these arguments in ruling that the defendant was entitled to an award of $1,542,903.88
in attorney’s fees, costs and expenses against the plaintiff. See Order (DE# 346 at 3031, 6/27/11). The Motion for Rehearing and/or Reconsideration of Order Dated June
27, 2011 [D.E. 346] Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (DE# 350, 7/11/11) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 13th day of
July, 2011.

________________________________
JOHN J. O’SULLIVAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies provided to:
United States District Judge Seitz
All counsel of record

3