Thompson v. The Florida Bar

Filing 387

ORDER denying 386 Motion to Vacate, Signed by Judge Adalberto Jordan on 2/28/08. (lh)

Download PDF
Thompson v. The Florida Bar Doc. 387 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. 07-21256-CIV-JORDAN JOHN B. THOMPSON, ) ) Plaintiff ) vs. ) ) THE FLORIDA BAR, et al., ) Defendants ) ____________________________________ ) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE Mr. Thompson's latest motion to vacate pursuant to Rule 60(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [D.E. 386] is DENIED . In his motion, Mr. Thompson argues that he was entitled to a hearing to show the Bar's purported bad faith. This argument is not adequate for a motion to vacate under Rule 60 because it does not "relate to newly discovered material evidence that would produce a different outcome in the underlying action. Nor do these arguments relate to `extraordinary circumstances' to justify relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6)." See Rease v. AT&T Corp., 239 Fed.Appx. 481, 484 (11th Cir. 2007). In other words, Mr. Thompson cannot use Rule 60 to make legal arguments that he made or could have made in opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss. Further, in the order of dismissal, I held that a hearing was not necessary because I assumed that Mr. Thompson's allegations were true. See Order of Dismissal at 16. To the extent that Mr. Thompson is seeking reconsideration of this ruling, his motion is denied as untimely under Rule 59(e). DONE and ORDERED in chambers in Miami, Florida, this 28th day of February, 2008. _________________________ Adalberto Jordan United States District Judge Copy to: All counsel of record

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?