Opinion
Case No: 2:11-cv-459-FtM-29CM
05-19-2015
STACEY SUE BERLINGER, BRIAN BRUCE BERLINGER and HEATHER ANNE BERLINGER, as Beneficiaries to the Rosa B. Schwiker Trust and all of its related trusts Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO, N.A. AS SUCCESSOR TO WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff BRUCE D. BERLINGER and SUE CASSELBERRY, Third Party Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 394), filed on March 5, 2015. Plaintiffs request that the Court reconsider its Order (Doc. 393) denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30. Doc. 394. Barbara A. Fein, attorney for non-party Linda LaVay, responded to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration on March 11, 2015. Doc. 398.
Reconsideration of a court's previous order is an extraordinary remedy and, thus, is a power which should be used sparingly. Carter v. Premier Rest. Mgmt., 2006 WL 2620302 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 13, 2006) (citing American Ass'n of People with Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F. Supp 2d 1337, 1339 (M.D. Fla. 2003)). The courts have "delineated three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Susman v. Salem, Saxon & Meilson, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 904 (M.D. Fla. 1994). "A motion for reconsideration should raise new issues, not merely readdress issues litigated previously." Paine Webber Income Props. Three Ltd. P'ship v. Mobil Oil Corp., 902 F. Supp. 1514, 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1995). The motion must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to demonstrate to the court the reason to reverse its prior decision. Carter, 2006 WL 2620302, at *1 (citing Taylor Woodrow Constr. Corp. v. Sarasota/Manatee Auth., 814 F. Supp. 1072, 1072-73 (M.D. Fla. 1993)).
A motion for reconsideration does not provide an opportunity to simply reargue - or argue for the first time - an issue the Court has already determined. Carter, 2006 WL 2620302, at * 1. The Court's opinions "are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant's pleasure." Id. (citing Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Industries, Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1988)). "The burden is upon the movant to establish the extraordinary circumstances supporting reconsideration." Mannings v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsboro Cnty., Fla., 149 F.R.D. 235, 235 (M.D. Fla. 1993). "Unless the movant's arguments fall into the limited categories outlined above, a motion to reconsider must be denied." Carter, 2006 WL 2620302, at *1.
The Court reviewed Plaintiffs' motion and the grounds upon which they assert that Barbara Fein be sanctioned for her conduct during a deposition of Linda LaVay that occurred on December 5, 2014. Doc. 394. The Court still finds that sanctions are not warranted in this case. Plaintiffs have not set forth any new facts or law to convince the Court to reverse its prior decision.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 394) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 19th day of May, 2015.
/s/_________
CAROL MIRANDO
United States Magistrate Judge
Copies:
Counsel of record