Edward Lewis Tobinick, MD et al v. Novella et al
ORDER denying 95 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Robin L. Rosenberg on 12/30/2014. (cgn)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 9:14-CV-80781-ROSENBERG/BRANNON
EDWARD LEWIS TOBINICK, MD,
M.D. STEVEN NOVELLA, et al,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting
SGU’s Motion to Dismiss [DE 95]. The Court has reviewed the Motion, the response, 1 the reply,
and the record in this case, and denies the Motion for the reasons set forth below.
“[R]econsideration of a previous 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) (citing Mannings v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough County, 149 F.R.D. 235, 235 (M.D. Fla.
1993)). “The ‘purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or
to present newly discovered evidence.’” Id. at 1369 (quoting Z.K. Marine Inc. v. M/V Archigetis,
808 F. Supp. 1561, 1563 (S.D. Fla. 1992)).
Only three major grounds generally justify
reconsideration: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new
The Court notes that Defendant SGU Productions requests attorney’s fees, in light of its contention that the
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration is frivolous and was filed in bad faith. See DE 96 at 6–7. While the Court denies
Plaintiffs’ Motion, it does not believe the Motion was filed in bad faith. Moreover, a court’s inherent power to award
attorney’s fees and costs as a sanction for bad-faith litigation “must be exercised with restraint and discretion.” See
Blanco GmbH+Co. KG v. Vlanco Indus., LLC, 992 F. Supp. 2d 1225, 1258 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Accordingly, the Court declines to award attorney’s fees.
evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. (citing Offices
Togolais Des Phosphates v. Mulberry Phosphates, Inc., 62 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 1331 (M.D. Fla.
1999); Sussman, 153 F.R.D. at 694). On the other hand, “[a] ‘motion for reconsideration should
not be used as a vehicle to . . . reiterate arguments previously made.’” Id.
Here, Plaintiffs admit that the only possible ground upon which the Motion can be granted
is the third. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to raise a plausible argument that there was
clear error or manifest injustice in the Court’s Order Granting SGU Productions’ Motion to
Dismiss [DE 91]. Rather, Plaintiffs simply repeat arguments they previously raised, and which
were addressed, either directly or indirectly, in the Court’s Order. This is insufficient.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order
Granting SGU’s Motion to Dismiss [DE 95] is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Pierce, Florida, this 30th day of December,
ROBIN L. ROSENBERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?