SIDERATOS
v.
PINELLAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Plaintiff Sideratos sought reconsideration of an interlocutory order issued on July 2, 2025, arguing that the court should review a hearing transcript before ruling. The court denied the motion for reconsideration and motion to stay, finding that Sideratos failed to meet the burden of identifying an intervening change in law, new evidence, or clear error.
The court held that Sideratos failed to meet the burden necessary to warrant reconsideration because he did not identify an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or clear error. The court also found it unnecessary to review the hearing transcript before ruling on the motion for reconsideration.
[1] A district court possesses inherent authority to revise its interlocutory orders before the entry of final judgment.
[2] Reconsideration of a court order is warranted only by an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent mani…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) new evidence which has become available; or (3) a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice”
The three limited circumstances under which a court may revise an interlocutory order
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Vasilis Sideratos filed a motion to reconsider the court's July 2, 2025 order. Subsequently, Sideratos filed a motion requesting the court s…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
VASILIS SIDERATOS,
Plaintiff,
V.
DEPUTY AUSTIN
RILL, et al.,
Defendant.
Case No. 8:24-cv-2986-SDM-AAS
ORDER
Plaintiff Vasilis Sideratos requests the court reconsider its July 2, 2025 order. (Doc. 42). District courts have “inherent authority to revise interlocutory orders before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case.” Hollander v. Wolf, No. 09-80587-CIV, 2009 WL 10667896, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2009). These limited circumstances prompt reconsideration of a court order: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) new evidence which has become available; or (3) a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. McGuire v. Ryland Grp., Inc., 497 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 1358 (M.D. Fla. 2007); True v. Comm'r of the I.R.S., 108 F. Supp. 2d 1361, 1365, (M.D. Fla. 2000). The party moving for reconsideration must present “facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” McGuire, 497 F. Supp. 2d at
1358 (internal quotations omitted). Mr. Sideratos fails to identify a change in controlling law, new evidence, or clear error by the court. Consequently, Mr. Sideratos fails to meet the burden necessary to warrant reconsideration. See Armstrong v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., No. 8:18-CV-2846-T-17AAS, 2019 WL 11556767, *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 10, 2019) (“A motion to reconsider is an extraordinary remedy and ‘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[.]") (citations omitted). Mr. Sideratos subsequently filed a motion for the court to stay a ruling pending a review of the transcript from the May 13, 2025 hearing. (Doc. 56). It is unnecessary to review the hearing transcript before ruling on the motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, Mr. Sideratos's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 47) and motion to stay ruling (Doc. 56) are
DENIED.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on July 25, 2025.
Amanda Arnold Samone
AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE
United States Magistrate Judge
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McGuire v. Ryland Grp., Inc., 2007 WL 2079961 (M.D. Fla. 2007)
- True v. Comm'r of the Internal Revenue Serv., 108 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (M.D. Fla. 2000)