TYMMS
v.
THE PANTHER GROUP
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 the defendant's motion for reconsideration and the plaintiff's motion to compel as moot.
The defendant moved for reconsideration, alleging the plaintiff's counsel knowingly made false statements in the complaint to survive a motion to dism…
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 Clear Error Or Manifest Injustice cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is The Panther Group, Inc.'s ("Defendant") Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 39) as well as Nicole Tymms' (“Plaintiff") Motion to Compel (Dkt. 38). The parties have filed responses in opposition (Dkt. 41; Dkt. 40). Upon careful consideration, the Court denies Defendant's Motion and denies Plaintiff's Motion as moot.
DISCUSSION
The instant motion practice arises from Defendant's alleged discovery of material falsehoods in Plaintiff's operative complaint. Defendant essentially claims that Plaintiff's counsel knowingly made false statements concerning Plaintiff's damages in order to survive the motion to dismiss phase of this lawsuit. See generally Dkt. 39. Defendant maintains that these false statements are the only reason the Court ruled in Plaintiff's favor, and that the Court should reconsider its
Order (Dkt. 32). Id. Defendant also explains that, “[i]n the unlikely event that the Court denies Defendant's [Motion], the Court will not need to rule on Plaintiff's [M]otion, as counsel will restart cooperation in discovery efforts." Dkt. 40 at 2 n.1.
The Court denies Defendant's Motion. "Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly.” Drew v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 8:14-CV-369-T-26TGW, 2014 WL 10504424, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2014). “[C]ourts have delineated three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994) (citations omitted). Here, Defendant's newly discovered evidence is disputed. See generally Dkt. 41. Plaintiff also raises legitimate questions surrounding its accuracy and proper interpretation. Id. The Court therefore finds that all the issues raised by Defendant are more appropriately addressed on summary judgment than on a motion for reconsideration. Defendant shall restart its cooperation in discovery efforts.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
(1) Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 39) is DENIED. (2) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. 38) is DENIED as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on May 28, 2024.
2
COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of Record
/s/ William F. Jung
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- LoRusso v. Warden, N. Fla. Evaluation & Treatment Ctr. (M.D. Fla. 2025)
- Tripp v. Walmart, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2022)