WEAN
v.
MASTERS
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.
The District Court denied plaintiff Richard Wean's three motions for clarification, construing them as motions for reconsideration of previously denied motions for injunctive relief. The court found that Wean presented no extraordinary circumstances and merely sought to relitigate issues already decided.
The Court held that Wean did not present extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration. Instead, he sought to relitigate issues the Court had already decided. Accordingly, his motions for reconsideration were denied.
[1] Motions for clarification may be construed as requests for reconsideration when they seek to have a previously denied motion granted.
[2] Reconsideration of a prior court order is an extraordinary measure that should be applied sparingly.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary measure that should be applied sparingly.”
Establishes the high bar for motions for reconsideration
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Richard Wean filed three motions for clarification (Docs. 83, 84, and 85) relating to three motions for injunctive relief that the Court had…
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 Extraordinary Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court are three “Motion[s] of Clarification” filed by Plaintiff Richard Wean (Docs. 83, 84, and 85). The motions relate to three motions for injunctive relief the Court denied on March 28, 2025. (See Doc. 78). The Court construes the motions for clarification as requests for reconsideration because they ask the Court to grant the motions it denied in the prior order.
Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary measure that should be applied sparingly. Adams v. Beoneman, 335 F.R.D. 452, 454 (M.D. Fla. 2020). Court orders are not intended as first drafts subject to revisions at a litigant's pleasure, so a movant must establish extraordinary circumstances supporting reconsideration. Gold Cross EMS, Inc. v. Children's Hosp. of Ala., 108 F. Supp. 3d 1376, 1384 (S.D. Ga. 2015). “A motion for reconsideration should raise new issues, not merely readdress issues previously litigated.” PaineWebber Income Props. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 902 F. Supp. 1514, 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1995).
Wean presents no extraordinary circumstances to warrant reconsideration of the Court's prior order. Rather, he seeks to relitigate issues the Court already decided. Accordingly, Wean's construes motions for reconsideration (Docs. 83, 84, and 85) are DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on April 24, 2025.
Sheri Polster Rappell SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SA: FTMP-1
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- PaineWebber Income Props. Three Ltd. P'ship Ex Rel. Third Income Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 902 F. Supp. 1514 (M.D. Fla. 1995)