MORROW et al v. ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY et al

Filing 85

ORDER denying 82 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 83 Motion for Hearing. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE HUGH LAWSON on 5/22/2020. (aks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION

BARBARA MORROW and BENNY
MORROW, individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No. 5:16-CV-137 (HL)

v.
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY,
et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiffs Barbara and Benny Morrow’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 82) and Motion for a Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 83). Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of this Court’s April 7,
2020 Order, denying class certification of Plaintiffs’ claims. (Doc. 81). In its Order,
the Court found that the individual class members’ breach of contract claims were
too factually dissimilar to adjudicate uniformly, and thus, class certification was
inappropriate. Plaintiffs argue now that the Court’s findings were clearly erroneous
and have requested oral argument.
I.

DISCUSSION

The Court may grant a motion for reconsideration only if the motion presents
“newly-discovered evidence” or points to “manifest errors of law or fact.” Arthur v.

King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116,
1119 (11th Cir. 1999)). A motion for reconsideration cannot be used “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, Fla., 408 F.3d
757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005). Courts should deny a motion for reconsideration that
“[does] nothing but ask the district court to reexamine an unfavorable ruling.”
Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344 (11th Cir. 2010). The Court
is not to “[r]econsider[] the merits of a judgment, absent a manifest error of law or
fact.” Id. “Court opinions are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision
and reconsideration at a litigant’s pleasure.” Cotton v. Georgia, No. 5:07-cv-159
(HL), 2007 WL 2345252, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 14, 2007) (quoting Am. Ass’n of
People with Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1340 (M.D. Fla. 2003)).
Plaintiffs present no new evidence. They argue that the Court erroneously
applied the relevant case law. First, Plaintiffs take issue with the Court’s application
of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Mabry, 274 Ga. 498
(2001). But Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any error of law or fact made by this
Court. They simply repeat arguments made in their original motion for class
certification. For example, in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class, they argue that, in
accordance with Mabry, “it is not necessary for the Morrows (or any other class
member) to show an actual diminished loss to trigger Allstate’s duty to assess or
its breach of that duty.” (Doc. 52-1, p. 21). In Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration,
2

they allege the Court erred “by requiring a showing that damage from a covered
loss actually resulted in diminished value [because] Mabry merely requires that
such damage has the potential to reduce the value of property.” (Doc. 82, p. 3).
These are identical arguments that the Court has already addressed and rejected
in its Order. Therefore, reconsideration of the Court’s Mabry analysis is
inappropriate.
Next, Plaintiffs argue that the Court misapplied Anderson v. American
Family Insurance Company, 800 F. App’x 814 (11th Cir. 2020). The Eleventh
Circuit decided this case after Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification, so
they were unable to address it in their original motion. Once Anderson was
decided, however, Defendants filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority addressing
the opinion and its application to the present case. (Doc. 78).1 Plaintiffs filed a
response and submitted to the Court their interpretation of Anderson and its effect
on their Motion to Certify Class. (Doc. 79). Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration
raises the same arguments discussed in their response to Defendants’ notification
of Anderson. (Doc. 82, pp. 5–6). Again, the Court previously rejected those
arguments in its Order. Therefore, the Court will not discuss Anderson further at
this time.

1

Defendant Allstate Indemnity Company also filed a Motion for Leave to File a
Reply in Support of its Notice of Supplemental Authority. (Doc. 80). The Court
denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, so Defendant’s motion is now moot.
3

Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the Court’s Order ignores the parties’ contractual
rights. (Doc. 82, p. 6). This argument is misplaced. The Morrow Plaintiffs as well
as other individual, potential plaintiffs can still litigate their contractual rights. The
Court’s Order denying class certification does not prevent them from seeking a
remedy for Defendants’ alleged breach of contract. The Order only limits their
ability to do so as a class.
II.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs present no new evidence and have not demonstrated any error
committed by this Court. Plaintiffs merely raise the same arguments that the Court
previously rejected. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
(Doc. 82). Likewise, Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Hearing on its Motion for
Reconsideration is also DENIED. (Doc. 83).
SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of May, 2020.

s/ Hugh Lawson_______________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
kac

4