CLARK
v.
PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC.
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 Court denied Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration because it failed to present newly discovered evidence or demonstrate manifest errors of law or fact.
Plaintiff filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's prior order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant. The motion argued against…
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 Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E) Motion For Reconsideration cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion (Dkt. 40), which seeks "reconsideration" of the Court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant (Dkt. 36). Plaintiff's motion is denied for the following reasons.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure "59(e) applies to motions for reconsideration of matters that are encompassed in a decision on the merits of the dispute." Brown v. Synovus Fin. Corp., 783 F. App'x 923, 931 (11th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted); Green v. Drug Enf't Admin., 606 F. 3d 1296, 1299 (11th Cir. 2010) (Tjoflat, J.) ("[T]he [reconsideration motion] is best construed [under] Rule 59(e) . . . ."). Plaintiff asks for reconsideration of a merits decision, so Rule 59(e) applies.
In the Eleventh Circuit, only "newly discovered evidence, or manifest errors of law or fact" warrant reconsideration. Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int'l, Inc., 626 F. 3d
1
1327, 1344 (11th Cir. 2010) (alterations in original) (quoting Arthur v. King, 500 F. 3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam)). Parties must do more than simply "ask the ... court to reexamine an unfavorable ruling," id., and may not attempt to raise arguments that were available before judgment but not advanced. See Kellog v. Schreiber, 197 F. 3d 1116, 1120 (11th Cir. 1999). Whether this burden is met is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. See Jacobs, 626 F. 3d at 1343 n.20.
Turning to Plaintiff's motion, the Court finds no reason to disturb its order. A subset of Plaintiff's arguments attacks the factual findings of the Court, but those arguments were already raised and considered at summary judgment. The Court does not address Plaintiff's other arguments attacking its impartiality. Plaintiff's motion, at its core, asks the court to reconsider the merits of its judgment, which is insufficient. See id. at 1344. Therefore, Plaintiff has not met his burden.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion (Dkt. 40) is hereby DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on April 21, 2025.
/s/ William F. Jung
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of Record
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re Kellogg v. Palmer K. Schreiber, 197 F.3d 1116 (11th Cir. 1999)
- Kananen v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 606 F. 3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2025)