Opinion
Case No: 2:15-mc-11-FtM-29CM
09-03-2015
DAVID CHARLES SUSSMAN, Plaintiff, v. TREVOR HAMPTON and M. BOAN, Defendants.
Copies: Pro Se Party
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Rule 52(b) Motion to Amend, and Objection to Doc. 2 (Doc. 3), which the Court has construed as a Motion for Reconsideration, filed on September 2, 2015. Plaintiff's requests that this Court reconsider its denial of the Plaintiff's Motion to Quash (Doc. 1). Doc. 3.
This Order denied Plaintiff's Motion to Quash as moot. --------
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 Plaintiff's motion and finds that Plaintiff has not set forth any new law or facts to convince the Court to reverse its prior decision.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Rule 52(b) Motion to Amend, and Objection to Doc. 2 (Doc. 3), which the Court has construed as a Motion for Reconsideration DENIED.
2. The Clerk is directed to close the file.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 3rd day of September, 2015.
/s/_________
CAROL MIRANDO
United States Magistrate Judge
Copies:
Pro Se Party