Eddy Leal, P.A. v. Bimini Development of Village West Corporation et al

Filing 53

ORDER denying 46 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 3/1/2018. (mc)

United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
Eddy Leal, P.A., Plaintiff,
v.
Bimini Development of Village
West Corporation and Jarrette
Bay Investment Corporation,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 17–21207-Civ-Scola
)
)
)
)

Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s order granting in part its motion for costs
(ECF No. 46). In its Order (ECF No. 45), the Court determined that the
Plaintiff is not entitled to recover mediation costs because such costs are
not taxable under 28 U.S.C. section 1920, and the Plaintiff did not provide
any legal authority to justify the recovery of such costs. The Plaintiff
requests reconsideration of the portion of the Court’s Order regarding
mediation costs, arguing that a specific statutory provision provides for the
recovery of such additional costs.
“A motion for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate old
matters . . . .” Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th
Cir. 2009) (internal citation and quotations omitted). Instead, a motion for
reconsideration remains appropriate where “(1) an intervening change in
controlling law has occurred, (2) new evidence has been discovered, or (3)
there is a need to correct clear error or prevent a manifest injustice.” Barr
v. Harvard Drug Grp., LLC, No. 13-CV-62019-KAM, 2015 WL 11181968, at
*3 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2015) (Marra, J.) (internal citation and quotations
omitted). “The moving party must set forth facts or law of a ‘strongly
convincing’ nature to induce the court to reverse a prior decision.” Id.
(internal citation omitted). In order to merit reconsideration, “the party
must do more than simply restate its previous arguments, and any
arguments the party failed to raise in the earlier motion will be deemed
waived.” See Vila v. Padron, No. 04-20520, 2005 WL 6104075, at *1 (S.D.
Fla. Mar. 31, 2005) (Altonaga, J.). “A motion for reconsideration should not
be used as a vehicle to present authorities available at the time of the first

decision or to reiterate arguments previously made.” Id. (internal
quotations and citation omitted).
In support of its motion, the Plaintiff argues that under 26 U.S.C.
section 7434(b)(2), the Court may award a prevailing party additional costs
not taxable under section 1920. Section 7434(b) states that “upon a
finding of liability on the part of the defendant, the defendant shall be
liable to the plaintiff in an amount equal to the greater of $5,000 or the
sum of any actual damages sustained by the plaintiff as a proximate result
of the filing of the fraudulent information return . . . the costs of the
action, and in the court’s discretion, reasonable attorneys’ fees.” Although
the Plaintiff argues that this statutory language encompasses mediation
costs in this case, the Court is unpersuaded. First, the Plaintiff provides
no authority for the proposition that section 7434(b)(2) expands the realm
of recoverable costs beyond those specifically enumerated in 28 U.S.C.
section 1920. Second, the Local Rules specifically provide that “[a]bsent
agreement of the parties to the contrary, the cost of the mediator’s services
shall be borne equally by the parties to the mediation conference.” S.D.
Fla. L.R. 16.2(b)(7). There is no evidence that such an agreement existed in
this case. Thus, the Plaintiff fails to make a sufficient showing under any
of the three prongs to justify reconsideration of the Court’s Order.
Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 46) is denied.
Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, on March 1, 2018.
______________________________
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge