Opinion
6:23-cv-659-CEM-LHP
05-26-2023
KHALED ABDEL-FATTAH, Plaintiff, v. FATIMA BELAL and MOHAMED Z. DELHOUM, Defendants
ORDER
LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:
MOTION: MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION TO REMOVE CASES 226-2016-CV-00184/637 TO U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF MIDDLE DISTRICE OF FLORIDA FROM HILLSBOROUGH SOUTH SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (Doc. No. 12)
FILED3: May 17, 2023
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
The Court does not require a response from Defendants to resolve the motion.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, previously filed a “Motion to Remove Cases 226-2016-CV-00184/637 to U.S. District Court of Middle Districe of Florida from Hillsborough South Superior Court of New Hampshire.” Doc. No. 6. Upon review, the Court denied that motion for failure to comply with the Local Rules and for failure to demonstrate that the relief sought (removal of cases from state court in New Hampshire to this Court to be combined with this matter) was proper. Doc. No. 10. Now, Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of that Order. Doc. No. 12. Upon review, the motion will be denied.
First, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g). Second, “[m]otions for reconsideration are permitted when there is (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” Stallworth v. Omninet Village, L.P., No. 6:16-cv-546-Orl-31DAB, 2016 WL 10100424, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2016) (citing Tristar Lodging, Inc. v. Arch Speciality Ins. Co., 434 F.Supp.2d 1286, 1301 (M.D. Fla. 2006), atfd, 215 Fed.Appx. 879 (11th Cir. 2007))). Plaintiff's Motion fails to satisfy any of these standards. See Doc. No. 12.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. No. 12) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.