SHEETS
v.
PRESSELLER
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.
This is an order denying a plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of a previously denied request for clerk's default against a defendant. The court reaffirmed that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy requiring a change in law or facts, neither of which the plaintiff demonstrated, and that service on a corporate defendant's office manager does not comply with Florida law.
The court denied the motion for reconsideration because plaintiff merely sought to re-litigate the merits without demonstrating an intervening change in law, facts, or legal error. Service on an office manager does not comply with Florida Statute § 48.081, and plaintiff must attempt service in compliance with that statute by October 7, 2024.
[1] A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue an issue previously decided by the court.
[2] Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed 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“a motion for reconsideration does not provide an opportunity to simply reargue an issue the Court has once determined.”
Establishes the legal standard that reconsideration motions cannot be used to relitigate previously decided issues.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Andrew Sheets sought a clerk's default against The Downtown Merchants Committee of Punta Gorda, Inc. The initial request was denied on the g…
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 Clerk'S Default cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff Andrew Sheets previously moved a clerk's default against Defendant The Downtown Merchants Committee of Punta Gorda, Inc. (Doc. 41.) That request was denied (Doc. 43), and Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider its ruling (Doc. 46). Defendant Jerry Presseller has responded in opposition to the motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 47.)
Plaintiff's motion will be denied because he merely seeks to re-litigate the merits of his request for a clerk's default. But “a motion for reconsideration does not provide an opportunity to simply reargue an issue the Court has once determined.” Am. Ass'n of People With Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1340 (M.D. Fla. 2003). Reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly. “Only a change in the law, or the facts upon which a decision is based, will justify a reconsideration of a previous order.” Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994).
Plaintiff does not claim an intervening change in controlling law or the underlying facts. Nor has he shown any legal error to induce the Court to reverse its decision. While Plaintiff claims he contacted Defendant, who stated they received service, and he contacted the Sheriff's Office, who says service was proper, these facts don't change the outcome. As outlined in the Court's order denying default, service on Diane Ford as “office manager" does not follow Florida law. (Doc. 43 at 2-3.) As ordered, Plaintiff must attempt service in compliance with Fla. Stat. § 48.081 by October 7, 2024. (Id. at 3-4.)
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 46) is DENIED.
ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on September 16, 2024.
Kyle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Am. Ass'n of People With Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (M.D. Fla. 2003)
- LoRusso v. Warden, N. Fla. Evaluation & Treatment Ctr. (M.D. Fla. 2025)