Opinion
CASE NO: 8:08-cv-2271-T-33AEP.
August 5, 2010
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff Michael Trabulsy's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. # 55). For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied.
On May 3, 2010, this Court entered an Order (Doc. # 52) granting Defendant Polk Community College's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 20) and denying as moot Polk Community College's Motion to Strike Portions of Mr. Trabulsy's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 38). This Court thereafter directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Polk Community College and to close this case. (Doc. # 52). Mr. Trabulsy now seeks reconsideration of the Court's Order (Doc. # 55).
The decision to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., is within the sound discretion of the Court and will not be overturned on appeal absent abuse of discretion. Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Glenn Estess Assoc., Inc., 763 F.2d 1237, 1238-39 (11th Cir. 1985). There are three grounds that justify granting a motion for reconsideration: 1) an intervening change in controlling law; 2) the availability of new evidence; or 3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See CSX Transp., Inc., v. City of Pensacola, Fla., 936 F. Supp. 885, 889 n. 2 (N.D. Fla. 1995); Sussman v. Salem, Saxon Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994). "A motion to reconsider is not a vehicle for rehashing arguments the Court has already rejected or for attempting to refute the basis for the Court's earlier decision." Lamar Adver. of Mobile, Inc. v. City of Lakeland, Fla., 189 F.R.D. 480, 490 (M.D. Fla. 1999); see also Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005).
Mr. Trabulsy's motion does not fit within any of these three grounds. Mr. Trabulsy has not presented a change in the law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or manifest injustice. Rather, Mr. Trabulsy's eight-page motion asserts arguments which were already presented and considered by the Court or are otherwise irrelevant to the Court's Order. Thus, Mr. Trabulsy has not established a basis for this Court's reconsideration of its previous Order granting the motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Mr. Trabulsy's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. # 55) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida.