ABDEL-FATTAH
v.
BELAL

M.D. Fla. | 2023-05-26
No. 12
District Court, M.D. Florida (2023)

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.

Holding

The court held that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied because it failed to comply with local rules and did not present any grounds for reconsideration.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a motion to remove state court cases from New Hampshire to the Middle District of Florida. The court previously de…

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.

Topics
Local Rules Compliance Removal Of Cases Motion For Reconsideration

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Local Rules Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.1

Upon review, the motion will be denied. First, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g). Second, “[m]otions for reconsideration are permitted when there is (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” Stallworth v. Omninet Village, L.P., No. 6:16-cv-546-Orl- 31DAB, 2016 WL 10100424, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2016) (citing Tristar Lodging, Inc. v. Arch Speciality Ins. Co., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1286, 1301 (M.D. Fla. 2006), aff’d, 215

F. App’x 879 (11th Cir. 2007))). Plaintiff’s Motion fails to satisfy any of these standards. See Doc. No. 12. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. No. 12) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 26, 2023.

ayn [...]

LESLIE AN PRICE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

Footnotes
1 The Court does not require a response from Defendants to resolve the motion. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, previously filed a “Motion to Remove Cases 226- 2016-CV-00184/637 to US District Court of Middle Districe of Florida from Hillsborough South Superior Court of New Hampshire.” Doc. No. 6. Upon review, the Court denied that motion for failure to comply with the Local Rules and for failure to demonstrate that the relief sought (removal of cases from state court in New Hampshire to this Court to be combined with this matter) was proper. Doc. No. 10. Now, Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of that Order. Doc. No. 12.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw