Quality of Life, Corp. et al v. The City of Margate

Filing 298

OMNIBUS ORDER Denying 261 Motion for Reconsideration and Denying 291 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 1/15/2019. See attached document for full details. (mno)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 17-cv-61894-BLOOM/Valle
QUALITY OF LIFE, CORP., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE CITY OF MARGATE,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
OMNIBUS ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs Quality of Life, Corp. and MMJ
Financial Services, Inc.’s (“Plaintiffs”) Corrected Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s
Summary Judgment Order or in the Alternative, to Stay the Case and Remand for City Review of
Plaintiffs’ Applications (the “Motion for Reconsideration”). See ECF No. [261]. Also pending
before this Court is the Defendant The City of Margate’s (“Defendant” or “City”) Motion to
Strike Plaintiffs’ Notice of Filing Transcript of June 3, 2015 City Commission Hearing, ECF No.
[291] (the “Motion to Strike”).

The Court has reviewed the motions, the supporting and

opposing submissions, the record and applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the
reasons that follow, both motions, ECF Nos. [261] and [291], are denied.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. See ECF Nos. [147] and [179].
On September 7, 2018, the Court held a hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for summary
judgment. See ECF No. [231]. On September 14, 2018, the Court entered an order denying
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and granting the Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment in full, ECF No. [251] (the “Order”). The Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ case
with prejudice and granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of the Defendant. Id. On

Case No. 17-cv-61894-BLOOM/Valle
October 15, 2018, Plaintiffs timely filed its Motion for Reconsideration. ECF No. [255]. On
October 18, 2018, with the Court’s permission, Plaintiffs amended their Motion for
Reconsideration and filed the Corrected Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. [261], which is
presently pending before this Court. Plaintiffs argue that the Court erred in its Order because
genuine issues of material fact remain, precluding the entry of summary judgment and that “new
or more fully developed arguments” should be evaluated to avoid manifest injustice. ECF No.
[261], at 1-2.
On October 19, 2018, Plaintiffs then filed a Motion for Leave to Conventionally File
Recordings of Margate City Commission Meetings, ECF No. [263] (“Motion for Leave”), which
the Court subsequently denied as untimely and improper. See ECF No. [271]. On October 31,
2018, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Filing Transcript of June 3, 2015 City Commission Hearing,
ECF No. [274] (the “Notice of Filing”), which seeks to introduce a transcript of one of the same
recordings Plaintiffs previously moved to file conventionally.

Compare ECF No. [274]

(“Plaintiffs . . . give notice of their filing the attached transcript of the City Commission hearing
from June 3, 2015”) with ECF No. [263] (“Specifically, the flash drive includes a video
recording of . . . the June 3, 2015, City Commission meeting.”). Defendant then moved to strike
the Notice of Filing, arguing that it was untimely and improper, was a “flagrant disregard for the
Court’s Order,” and was an attempt to run “afoul of the prohibition about raising new evidence
in a reply brief.” ECF No. [291], at 3. Plaintiffs argue in response, among other grounds, that
Defendant’s Motion to Strike is untimely. ECF No. [292], at 9.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f)(2) states that a “court may strike from a pleading
an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter . . . on
motion made by a party either before responding to the pleading or, if a response is not allowed,

2

Case No. 17-cv-61894-BLOOM/Valle
within 21 days after being served with the pleading.”

F.R.C.P 12(f)(2) (emphasis added).

Defendant filed its Motion to Strike on December 6, 2018, thirty-six days after the Notice of
Filing was filed. While the Court denies the Motion to Strike as untimely, it nevertheless agrees
with the Defendant that the Notice of Filing is an attempt to circumvent the Court’s Order
denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave. Like Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave, the Notice of Filing is
untimely and improper. Moreover, as conceded by Plaintiffs’ in their Motion for Leave, the
transcript Plaintiffs attempt to introduce is not evidence that is “newly discovered.” Indeed, the
Plaintiffs were not only present at the June 3, 2015 commission meeting when it took place, but
they also admit in their Motion for Leave that the “recordings were downloaded directly from the
City’s website.” ECF No. [263], at 1. It would be improper for the Court to consider evidence
that was previously available to a party, but that they elected not to put forward, in support of a
motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, while the Court denies Defendant’s Motion to Strike,
ECF No. [291], it will not consider the transcript attached to the Notice of Filing in considering
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration.
In reviewing a motion for reconsideration, the Court “will not alter a prior decision
absent a showing of ‘clear and obvious error’ where ‘the interests of justice’ demand correction.”
Prudential Securities, Inc. v. Emerson, 919 F. Supp. 415, 417 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (quoting
American Home Assurance, Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assoc. Inc., 763 F.2d 1237, 1239 n.2 (11th
Cir. 1985). “[R]econsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed
sparingly.” Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1370 (S.D. Fla.
2002). “[T]he moving party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce
the court to reverse its prior decision.” Id. at 1369. “The three primary grounds that justify
reconsideration are: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new

3

Case No. 17-cv-61894-BLOOM/Valle
evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Delaware Valley
Floral Grp., Inc. v. Shaw Rose Nets, LLC, 597 F.3d 1374, 1383 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal
quotation omitted).

“While a party may seek to correct clear errors in a motion for

reconsideration, [a]n error is not clear and obvious if the legal issues are at least arguable.”
Leonard v. Astrue, 487 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1341 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (internal quotations omitted)
(citing United States v. Battle, 272 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1358 (N.D. Ga. 2003)).
Plaintiffs argue that the Court erred in granting summary judgment because 1) the Court
misapprehended Plaintiffs’ legal arguments and the Court should reconsider these arguments to
avoid manifest injustice, and 2) genuine issues of material facts remain precluding the entry of
summary judgment.
The Court first notes that Plaintiffs rely on many of the same arguments in their Motion
for Reconsideration as they did in their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. [147],
and in Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No.
[195].

In relitigating these arguments Plaintiffs’ now claim that the Court “patently

misunderstood Plaintiffs’ legal arguments.” ECF No. [261], at 2. Plaintiffs again argue, for the
third time, that they did not have to submit a formal request for an accommodation, despite the
City having a clear procedure for doing so, because such application would have been futile.
Compare Plfs’ Mot. for Partial Summ. J., [147], at 14 (“It is plainly evident that submitting a
formal request for a reasonable accommodation under the City’s zoning code would have been
futile”); with Plfs’ Response in Opp’n to Deft’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. [195], at 13
(“Despite its clear futility, Ms. Jimenez still [informally] requested a reasonable accommodation
during the May 3, 2017.”); and with Plfs’ Mot. for Reconsideration, ECF No. [261], at 33
(“Plaintiffs maintain they had no obligation to make a formal application to open a detox facility

4

Case No. 17-cv-61894-BLOOM/Valle
because the City’s position was made final . . . Plaintiffs are not required to conclusively show
that a formal application for a reasonable accommodation would have been futile.”). Plaintiffs’
Motion for Reconsideration urges the Court to reconsider its ruling “because [they] disagree with
the Court’s treatment of certain facts and its legal conclusions.” Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of
Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005). This basis is sufficient to deny the Motion
for Reconsideration, as motions for reconsideration cannot be used “to relitigate old matters . . .
[or] raise [new] argument[s].” Id. Plaintiffs’ Motion requests that this Court rethink what it has
already considered. See ECF No. [251] at 37 (“Plaintiffs’ futility argument is not supported by
the record. Because there is no genuine issue of material fact that Plaintiffs did not submit a
request for a reasonable accommodation through Defendant’s established procedures, Defendant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”). On this basis alone, the Motion for Reconsideration
must be denied. Nevertheless, the Court has carefully considered Plaintiffs’ arguments and finds
that they are without merit.1
The Court is likewise unpersuaded by Plaintiffs’ claim that the Court erred in granting
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment because genuine issues of material fact remain that
preclude summary judgment. As noted by the Court in its Order, “cross motions for summary
judgment may be probative of the nonexistence of a factual dispute, but this procedural posture
does not automatically empower the court to dispense with the determination whether questions
of material fact exist.” Georgia State Conference of NAACP v. Fayette Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs,
775 F.3d 1336, 1345–46 (11th Cir. 2015). Plaintiffs argue that the Court “erred in many

1

Rather than the dismissal of the instant action, Plaintiffs also argue that the “proper solution” regarding the dispute
of the formal accommodation procedure issue would be for the Court to stay this case pending the outcome of the
Plaintiffs’ submission of a formal application for reasonable accommodation to the City. ECF No. [261], at 35.
Given the late stage of this litigation, and in light of the fact that the Court has already issued an order on the merits
of this case, the Court declines to exercise its broad discretion to stay the proceedings. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
request for a stay is denied.

5

Case No. 17-cv-61894-BLOOM/Valle
demonstrative parts of its Order by weighing evidence and deciding fact issues, rather than
determining whether factual disputes exist.” ECF No. [261], at 3.
To the extent Plaintiffs argue that the Court improperly weighed evidence in rendering its
ruling on summary judgment, the Court clarifies that the weight of the undisputed record
evidence in this case compelled the Court to find that the Defendant was entitled to judgment as
a matter of law. Furthermore, although Plaintiffs argue that the Court erroneously held that there
were no facts in dispute, Plaintiffs fail to identify a single disputed material fact that would
warrant reconsideration. The Court, therefore, rejects this argument.
Plaintiffs also argue that the Court’s Order is “largely based on Defendant’s
misstatements of evidence,” highlighting in a footnote in its Motion for Reconsideration that
“[t]ellingly, Defendant’s statement of the facts (ECF [180]) is cited 114 times; whereas,
Plaintiffs statement of facts (ECF [148]) is cited on seven occasions.” ECF No. [261], at 1 fn. 2
(emphasis in original). While Plaintiffs take issue with the Court’s record citations, they do not
cite to any fact within those 114 citations that is in dispute or otherwise material. “Only disputes
over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly
preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will
not be counted.” See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). All of the
evidence referenced in the Motion for Reconsideration was considered by the Court in rendering
its decision on summary judgment. The fact that every statement of fact may not have been
highlighted in the Order is only indicative that those facts were not deemed material and were
therefore not essential to the Court’s analysis. Nonetheless, the Court has taken the time to
scrutinize each of the facts relied upon in its Order. Consistent with its previous ruling, the Court

6

Case No. 17-cv-61894-BLOOM/Valle
finds that there are no material issues of fact in dispute that would preclude the Court from
entering summary judgment in favor of the Defendant.
Plaintiffs have not met their burden on reconsideration to establish that the Court’s Order,
ECF No. [251], was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. [261], is DENIED; and
2. Defendants’ Motion to Strike, ECF No. [291], is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 15th day of January, 2019.

_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

7