SAITO
v.
LEWIS
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 plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration because they failed to demonstrate a change in law or facts, or any legal error in the prior ruling.
Plaintiffs moved to strike pleadings filed by an attorney, arguing his representation was prohibited. The magistrate judge denied this motion. Plainti…
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 28 U.S.C. § 636(C) cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiffs Koichi and Lynnea Saito previously moved to “strike any pleadings filed by Attorney Steven Force” because his representation “is prohibited by law.” (Doc. 65 at 1.) That requested was denied (Doc. 66), and Plaintiffs now ask the Court to reconsider its ruling (Doc. 67.) First, Plaintiffs argue that the undersigned “acted . . . without legal consent or jurisdiction, in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, when he [issued the challenged] ruling.” (Doc. 67 at 1.) Not so. “Under the Federal Magistrate Act, a magistrate judge may issue binding rulings on nondispositive matters.” Terry v. Vannoy, No. CV 18-812, 2019 WL 2383296, at *1 (W.D. La. June 5, 2019); see also United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1357 (11th Cir. 2009) (“[M]agistrate judges are authorized to hear and determine any pretrial matter[.]”). This case has been referred to the undersigned for all non-dispositive matters. Because Plaintiffs’ motion to strike falls into that category, there has been no violation of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. See, e.g., Broad. v. D.B. Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund, L.P., No. 3:08-CV- 222-J-34TEM, 2009 WL 10670728, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 25, 2009).
Second, Plaintiffs attempt to re-litigate the merits of their motion to strike. (See Doc. 67 at 1-2.) 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). 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. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs’ Objection and Demand for Reconsideration (Doc. 67) is
DENIED.
ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 30, 2023.
Me. Jai Kile C. Dudek” United States Magistrate Judge
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saito v. Lewis, 2019 WL 2383296 (M.D. Fla. 2023)…28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, when he [issued the challenged] ruling.” (Doc. 67 at 1.) Not so. “Under the Federal Magistrate Act, a magistrate judge may issue binding rulings on non- dispositive matters.” Terry v. Vannoy, No. CV 18-812, 2019 WL 2383296, at *1 (W.D. La. June 5, 2019); see also United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1357 (11th Cir. 2009) (“[M]agistrate judges are authorized to hear and determine any pretrial matter[.]”). This case has been referred to the undersigned for all non…
-
Saito v. Lewis (M.D. Fla. 2023)…r “28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73.” (Doc. 41 at 1-2.) This is simply wrong. “Under the Federal Magistrate Act, a magistrate judge may issue binding rulings on non- dispositive matters.” Terry v. Vannoy, No. CV 18-812, 2019 WL 2383296, at *1 (W.D. La. June 5, 2019); see also United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1357 (11th Cir. 2009) (“[Mlagistrate judges are authorized to hear and determine any pretrial matter[.]”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED: Plaintiffs’ Notice of R…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009)
- Am. Ass'n of People With Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (M.D. Fla. 2003)
- Saito v. Lewis, 2019 WL 2383296 (M.D. Fla. 2023)