Rodriguez v. City of Doral et al

Filing 130

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION denying 118 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 118 Motion to Alter Judgment. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 3/16/2015. (tm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 12-20700-CIV-COOKE/TORRES
ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF DORAL, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________/
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This case is before me upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration/Alter or Amend
Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 118). The motion
is fully briefed and ripe for review.
The only grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newly-discovered evidence or
manifest errors of law or fact. Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007). In his
motion, Plaintiff argues that the Court made contradictory findings regarding the issue of
resignation versus termination. First, the Court notes that it disregarded the dispute over
who suggested that Plaintiff resign because that fact was not material. An issue of fact is
only ‘material’ if, under the applicable substantive law, it might affect the outcome of the
case. Harrison v. Culliver, 746 F.3d 1288, 1298 (11th Cir. 2014). On the other hand, the
Court’s Order cited directly to Plaintiff’s deposition when it noted that “Rodriguez clearly
requested the option to resign.” According to the deposition excerpt provided, the following
question and answer was presented:
Q. You said, can I have an opportunity to resign, and then you went outside
and that's when you called the PBA; correct?
A. That is correct.
Anthony Rodriguez Deposition, p. 142, lines 22-25. (ECF No. 83-1). The fact that
Plaintiff ultimately requested the opportunity to resign was reiterated in George Gulla’s
Declaration, which Plaintiff filed to support his opposition to Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment. (See ECF No. 97-2). In paragraph 17 of his declaration, Gulla stated:

1

“Detective Rodriguez reentered the office and asked to be allowed to exercise the option to
resign.” Accordingly, the evidence on the record does not support Plaintiff’s assertion that
manifest errors of fact exist, requiring reconsideration.
Plaintiff’s arguments regarding errors of law are also unpersuasive. Applicable case
law clearly requires the district court to presume that a resignation was voluntary. Moorer v.
City of Montgomery, 293 F. App'x 684, 690 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Hargray v. City of
Hallandale, 57 F.3d 1560, 1568 (11th Cir.1995)). Here, there is no dispute that Plaintiff
submitted a letter of resignation, and affirmatively represented that he had, in fact, resigned
when he sought subsequent employment. An employee's resignation will only be deemed
involuntary where the employer (1) forces the resignation by coercion or duress, or (2)
obtains the resignation by deceiving or misrepresenting a material fact to the employee.
Ross v. City of Perry, Ga., 396 F. App'x 668, 670 (11th Cir. 2010). An employee is not
coerced merely because he believes that resigning is his only option. Id. (agreeing with the
district court that plaintiff was not coerced into resigning). Moreover, “[a] resignation in
response to imminent termination may be considered voluntary if the totality of the
circumstances suggest the decision to resign was a deliberate one. Rademakers v. Scott, 350
F. App'x 408, 412 (11th Cir. 2009). As I found in my order granting summary judgment,
such circumstances were present in this case. Plaintiff’s reliance on district court decisions
from outside of the Southern District of Florida does not establish manifest errors of law.
Finally, a motion for reconsideration cannot be used to “relitigate old matters, raise
argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.”
Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009). A significant portion
of Plaintiff’s motion merely reiterates arguments he previously raised in his response to
Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Because Plaintiff has not provided any basis
for reconsideration, his motion is denied.
Accordingly, I hereby ORDER and ADJUDGE that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration/Alter or Amend Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 118) is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE and ORDERED in chambers at Miami, Florida, this 16th day of March
2015.

2

Copies furnished to:
Edwin G. Torres, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Counsel of Record

3