F & W LAWN CARE AND LANDSCAPING, INC.
v.
COZART
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.
A Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider is inapplicable to an interlocutory order, and an unedited response with internal comments is stricken.
Defendant filed a motion to reconsider an interlocutory order and a response to a motion for sanctions that contained unedited comments. The court con…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule 60(B) Motion For Relief From Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Robert A. Cozart's Rule 59(e) Motion to Reconsider (Doc. #2389.) Also before the Court is Defendant's Response in Opposition (Doc. #92) to Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. #78.)
The Eleventh Circuit recently clarified that “Rules 59(e) and 60(b) only come into play after a final, appealable judgment is entered.” Hornady v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, 118 F. 4th 1367, 1379 (11th Cir. 2024) (citing Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F. 3d 1307, 1315 (11th Cir. 2000) (“an interlocutory order is not subject to . . . Rule 59″); Region 8 Forest Serv. Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock, 993 F. 2d 800, 806 n.5 (11th Cir. 1993) (“A motion for reconsideration made after final judgment falls within the ambit of either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b)”)).
See also Hertz Corp. v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 16 F. 3d 1126, 1132 (11th Cir. 1994) (“Rule 59(e) remain[s] dormant . . . until a final judgment has been entered.”); id. at 1133 (“Rule 59(e) . . . can be activated only by entry of [final] judgment”).
The Court’s Opinion and Order (Doc. #82) granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. #75), and dismissing Defendant's Amended Counterclaim (Doc. #265) was an interlocutory order. See (Doc. #82, p. 12) (directing the clerk to “withhold entry of judgment . . . pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)”) (emphasis removed). Thus, Rule 59(e) “do[es] not apply.” Hornady, 118 F. 4th at 1379. Therefore, Defendant's Rule 59(e) Motion to Reconsider (Doc. #389) is DENIED.
On a separate note, Defendant has filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. #92) to Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. #78). However, the Response appears to be an unedited version in which comments, some of which discuss the Response's strengths and weaknesses, have not been removed. The Court therefore DIRECTS the Clerk to STRIKE Defendant's Response.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
1. Defendant Robert A. Cozart's Rule 59(e) Motion to Reconsider (Doc. #89) is DENIED.
2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to STRIKE Defendant's Response in Opposition (Doc. #92) from the Court's Docket.
2
3. Defendant may file another Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (Doc. #378) no later than 9:00a.m. EST on Friday, June 13, 2025.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 11th day of June 2025.
John E teeb
JOHN E. STEELE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: Parties of record
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Region 8 Forest Serv. Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800 (11th Cir. 1993)
- Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2000)
- The HERTZ Corp. v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 16 F.3d 1126 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Hornady v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, 118 F.4th 1367 (11th Cir. 2024)