Woods v. Reeve et al

Filing 263

ORDER denying 248 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 3/6/2025. See attached document for full details. (jck)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT PIERCE DIVISION
Case Number: 21-14001-CIV-MARTINEZ
YOLANDA WOODS, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of
Alteria Woods,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTOPHER REEVE, PAT
WHITE, AND RICK SARCINELLO,
in their individual capacities,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of
Order on Motions for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”), (ECF No. 248). Having reviewed
Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants Christopher Reeves and Rick Sarcinello’s Responses, (ECF Nos.
253, 254), and the pertinent portions of the record, the Court DENIES the Motion.
In the Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court’s Order on
Motions for Summary Judgment (the “Court’s Order”), (ECF No. 245). Plaintiff asserts that this
Court ignored or misunderstood material facts and misapplied the applicable law. “Courts have
distilled three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling
law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest
injustice.” Instituto de Prevision Militar v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 485 F. Supp. 2d 1340, 1343 (S.D.
Fla. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Williams v. QuikTrip Corp., 817
Fed. Appx. 743, 747 (11th Cir. 2020) (“The only grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration
are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” (alterations omitted)). The

reconsideration decision is granted only in extraordinary circumstances and is “committed to the
sound discretion of the district judge.” Tristar Lodging, Inc. v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., 434 F.
Supp. 2d 1286, 1301 (M.D. Fla. 2006) (quoting Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assocs.,
Inc., 763 F.2d 1237, 1238–39 (11th Cir. 1985)) (internal quotations omitted).
Plaintiff fails to meet the legal standard for reconsideration.

The Motion for

Reconsideration does not demonstrate a change in the law or clear error and does not present newly
discovered evidence that would justify a reconsideration. Moreover, parties “cannot use a . . .
motion [for reconsideration] to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could
have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, 408
F/3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005); Oscar v. United States, no. 18-21368-Civ, 2018 WL 3946475, at
*1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2018).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration, (ECF No. 248), is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 6th day of March 2025.

____________________________________
JOSE E. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies provided to:
All Counsel of Record

2