Opinion
Case No: 2:14-cv-492-FtM-38CM
07-14-2015
FIRST MUTUAL GROUP, LP, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN DAVID FIRESTONE, Defendant.
Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court. --------
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Renewed Motion to Dismiss Count I of the Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. #25) filed on July 14, 2015. Plaintiff First Mutual Group, LP is suing Defendant Brian David Firestone for Breach of Contract (Count I) and Negligence (Count II). On March 10, 2015, Firestone moved to dismiss Count I but the Court denied the request. (See Doc. #18; cf Doc. #19). Now, Firestone again seeks to dismiss Count I pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in light of an April 23, 2015 order by a senior district judge in the Middle District of Florida. (See Doc. #25-3 (dismissing similar breach of contract count without prejudice)). Upon consideration, the Court finds the motion is due to be denied because the Court's previous order is final; an unpublished district court opinion is not binding; and there is no worthy reason to justify relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6). See Prunty v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-105-FtM-29DNF, 2015 WL 3509351, *2 (M.D. Fla. June 4, 2015) (quoting Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus., Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (ND. Ill. 1988) (Court opinions "are not intended as mere first drafts subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant's pleasure.")); Reichman v. McDonough, No. 3:06CV155/RV/EMT, 2006 WL 2711521, *3 n.2 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 21, 2006) (noting unpublished opinions are not binding); In re Braga, 272 F.R.D. 621, 627 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (noting Rule 60(b)(6) relief is only warranted under "extraordinary circumstances.").
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Defendant's Renewed Motion to Dismiss Count I of the Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. #25) is DENIED. Further, in future pleadings, Defendant is directed to use the correct legal caption.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 14th day of July, 2015.
/s/_________
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record