Osorio v. Miami Dade County

Filing 44

ORDER denying 42 Motion for Hearing. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 4/14/2017. (ail) (ail).

United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
Estate of Federico Osorio and Marta
Garcia, as personal representative
of the estate, Plaintiffs
v.
Miami-Dade County, Defendant

)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 16-20200-Civ-Scola
)
)
)

Order Denying Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
The Estate of Federico Osorio (the “Estate”) asks the Court to alter or
amend its judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (ECF No.
42). “The only grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newly-discovered
evidence or manifest errors of law or fact. A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used
to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have
been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335,
1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations omitted).
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. A further basis for a motion to reconsider would be
a controlling or significant change in the law or facts since the
submission of the issue to the Court. Such problems rarely arise
and the motion to reconsider should be equally rare.
Z.K. Marine Inc. v. M/V Archigetis, 808 F. Supp. 1561, 1563 (S.D. Fla. 1992)
(Hoeveler, J.) (citation omitted). Because the motion does not present any
ground to support alteration of the Court’s Order Granting Defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint (ECF No. 40), the motion is denied.
The Court’s order noted that the Estate’s Fourth Amended Complaint
repeated the accusations of the Estate’s previous complaints, which the Court
had rejected in its prior orders dismissing the complaints. (Order at 3, ECF No.
40.) In addition, the Court noted that, although the Fourth Amended
Complaint contained no new factual allegations, it cited for the first time three
sections of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et

seq. (Id.) None of the cited sections, however, applied to the factual allegations
in the Complaint. (Id.) In its response to the Defendant’s motion to dismiss, the
Estate argued that the Defendant had violated a different section of the ADA.
(Id. at 4.) The Court held that the Estate could not amend its complaint
through opposition briefing. (Id.) Nevertheless, the Court conducted an analysis
and determined that the Fourth Amended Complaint failed to include sufficient
factual material to state a claim under the ADA. (Id. at 4-6.)
In its motion to alter the judgment, the Estate claims that the Court’s
order “mistakenly points to the miscitation of the actionable statute. . .as
grounds for dismissal” and cites case law holding that a plaintiff should be
permitted to amend a complaint to cite to the appropriate statute. (Mot. at 1-2,
ECF No. 42.) However, as noted above, the Court did conduct an analysis of the
allegations set forth in the Fourth Amended Complaint and concluded that
they were insufficient to state a claim under the ADA.
The remainder of the Estate’s motion makes arguments in support of its
ADA claim that it either already made or could have made in its Response to
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 37). None of the Plaintiff’s arguments demonstrate
that the Court made a manifest error of law or fact, that the Court patently
misunderstood the Estate, or that there has been a controlling or significant
change in the law or facts since the Court’s order.
Thus, having reviewed the Plaintiff’s motion, the Defendant’s response
(ECF No. 43), the record, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court denies
the Estate’s motion to alter or amend judgment (ECF No. 42).
Done and ordered in chambers, at Miami, Florida, on April 14, 2017.
_____________________________
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge