SAITO
v.
PATEL
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 plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of a prior order denying their motions to strike the notices of appearance filed by defense attorneys Steve Tran and Steven Force. The court held that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy requiring a change in law or facts, neither of which plaintiffs demonstrated.
The court denied the motion for reconsideration because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate either an intervening change in controlling law or the underlying facts, nor did they show any legal error in the original decision. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy employed sparingly and does not provide an opportunity to re-litigate previously determined issues.
“Only a change in the law, or the facts upon which a decision is based, will justify a reconsideration of a previous order.”
Establishes the legal standard for motions for reconsideration in the M.D. Florida circuit
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs Koichi and Lynnea Saito filed motions to strike notices of appearance filed by attorneys Steve Tran and Steven Force, arguing the attorneys…
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.
Plaintiffs Koichi and Lynnea Saito previously moved to strike the notices of appearance filed by attorneys Steve Tran and Steven Force “unless [they] can show [] legal and lawful authority to represent” their clients. (Docs. 49, 50 at 1.) That request was denied (Doc. 51), and Plaintiffs now ask the Court to reconsider its ruling (Doc. 58).
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). Plaintiffs do not claim an intervening change in controlling law or the
underlying facts. Nor have Plaintiffs shown any legal error to induce the Court to reverse its decision. Plaintiffs instead seek to re-litigate the merits of their motions to strike. 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).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs' Objection and Demand for Reconsideration (Doc. 58) is DENIED.
ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on May 13, 2024.
Kyle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge
Copies: All Parties of Record
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)