Opinion
2:24-cv-65-JES-KCD
05-13-2024
KOICHI SAITO and LYNNE'A SAITO, Plaintiffs, v. PRATIK PATEL, DECUBAS & LEWIS, PETER LANNING, EX LEGAL PLLC, COLLIER COUNTY ET AL, STATE OF FLORIDA, and MARC JOSEPH, Defendants.
ORDER
Kyle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiffs Koichi and Lynnea Saito previously moved to strike the notices of appearance filed by attorneys Steve Tran and Steven Force “unless [they] can show [] legal and lawful authority to represent” their clients. (Docs. 49, 50 at 1.) That request was denied (Doc. 51), and Plaintiffs now ask the Court to reconsider its ruling (Doc. 58).
Reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly. “Only a change in the law, or the facts upon which a decision is based, will justify a reconsideration of a previous order.” Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994). Plaintiffs do not claim an intervening change in controlling law or the underlying facts. Nor have Plaintiffs shown any legal error to induce the Court to reverse its decision. Plaintiffs instead seek to re-litigate the merits of their motions to strike. But “a motion for reconsideration does not provide an opportunity to simply reargue an issue the Court has once determined.” Am. Ass'n of People With Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F.Supp.2d 1337, 1340 (M.D. Fla. 2003).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs' Objection and Demand for Reconsideration (Doc. 58) is DENIED.