Vairma v. Carnival Corporation

Filing 73

ORDER denying 61 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Patricia A. Seitz on 5/10/2016. (pes)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 15-20724-CIV-SEITZ/TURNOFF
TEDDI VAIRMA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CARNIVAL CORPORATION,
Defendant.

__________________________!
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the Plaintiffs Motion for Rehearing or
Reconsideration of Order Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [DE-61]. The Order
granted Defendant summary judgment on Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages because, taking
all of the record evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff did not show that
Defendant's actions met the standard for imposing punitive damages. Specifically, Plaintiffwas
unable to show that Defendant acted willfully, wantonly, or outrageously. Because Plaintiff has
not met the standard for reconsideration, 1 her motion is denied.
Reconsideration of an 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).
There are three grounds for reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.

!d. at 1369. Plaintiff does not argue that the law has changed or that new evidence has become

'Plaintiffs motion does not state that it is made pursuant to a particular Rule of Civil
Procedure. Nor does the motion set out any standard that should be applied for reconsideration.

available. Thus, the Court will assume that Plaintiff maintains that the Court committed clear
error in granting the partial summary judgment.
In order to demonstrate clear error, a plaintiff must do more than simply restate previous
arguments. Bautista v. Cruise Ships Catering & Service Intern'!, N. V, 350 F. Supp. 2d 987, 992
(S.D. Fla. 2003).

It is an improper use of the motion to reconsider to ask the Court to rethink what the
Court ... already thought through- rightly or wrongly .... The motion to reconsider
would be appropriate where, for example, the Court has patently misunderstood a party,
or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties,
or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.

Z.K. Marine Inc. v. M/V Archigetis, 808 F. Supp. 1561, 1563 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (citations omitted
and brackets omitted). Thus, a "motion for reconsideration cannot be used tore-litigate old
matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of the
[challenged order]. This prohibition includes new arguments that were previously available, but
not pressed." Wilchombe v. Teevee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotations and citations omitted).
Plaintiff has not met her burden. Plaintiffs motion is simply a re-argument of the
arguments Plaintiff made at summary judgment. In part, Plaintiff appears to argue that her claim
for punitive damages should go to trial because the Court previously held, at the motion to
dismiss stage of this litigation, that punitive damages were an available remedy and that Plaintiff
had adequately pled a claim for such damages. However, the standard for pleading a sufficient
claim and the standard for avoiding summary judgment are significantly different. Summary
judgment involves consideration of a fully developed factual record, while a motion to dismiss
involves consideration of the allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to the
2

plaintiff. Thus, the mere fact that Plaintiff successfully pled a claim for punitive damages does
not mean that the record evidence supports that claim.
Furthermore, despite Plaintiffs insistence that Defendant acted with "flagrant disregard
of passenger safety," Plaintiffs own expert testified that the area where Plaintiff fell met industry
standards for slip resistance when dry and Plaintiff testified that the floor was dry when she fell.
These facts alone establish that Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages. 2 Moreover, as set
out in the Order Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, the record evidence
demonstrates that Defendant took steps to ensure that the floor remained safe. Simply because
the steps were not the ones Plaintiff would have chosen does not demonstrate that Defendant's
actions arises to "willful, wanton, or outrageous conduct." Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Rehearing or Reconsideration of Order Granting
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [DE-61] is DENIED.

r--

:---

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this~ day of May, 2016.

P ATRlCIA A. EIT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:

All counsel of record

2

Based on these facts, it is possible that Plaintiff may have difficulty establishing her
claim for negligence at trial. However, that issue is not currently before the Court.
3