MYERS
v.
NAPLES GOLF AND BEACH CLUB, INC.
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 defendants' motion for reconsideration, finding they had not presented new arguments and that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy.
Plaintiffs were granted an extension to respond to motions for remand. Defendants moved for reconsideration of this extension order, arguing the under…
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 Liberal Construction Of Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 16.) They ask the Court to “withdraw its endorsed order [that] granted [Plaintiffs] an extension to March 20, 2023 to respond to the two pending motions for remand.” (Id. at 2.)1 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are designed to “facilitate a proper ruling on the merits.” Diaz v. Jaguar Rest. Grp., LLC, 627 F. 3d 1212, 1214
like Plaintiffs. See Jones v. Leocadio, No. 212CV285FTM29SPC, 2012 WL 12916410, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 23, 2012). Liberally allowing extensions of time recognizes that enforcing strict deadlines often does little to advance the ends of justice. See, e.g., Des Isles v. Evans, 225 F. 2d 235, 236 (5th Cir. 1955) (“The rules . . . were not adopted to set traps and pitfalls by way of technicalities for unwary litigants.”). Defendants argue (at length) how Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is frivolous. In their view, this leaves “no reason to postpone requiring [a response] to the motions for remand.” (Doc. 16 at 5.) But we are not here to decide the merits of this case. And the Court declines to rule on Plaintiffs’ claims through a motion for extension of time. Given extensions of time are liberally extended to pro se litigants, the Court stands by its decision.
One last point. Reconsideration of an order is an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly. It is not meant as an opportunity to simply reargue—or argue for the first time—an issue the court has already determined. Carter v. Premier Rest. Mgmt., No. 2:06-CV-212-FTM-99DNF, 2006 WL 2620302, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 13, 2006). Court opinions “are not . . . mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant’s pleasure.” Id. Defendants have done no more than repackage (and expound upon) the arguments they previously made. Their motion is thus “due to be denied.” Id. ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on February 17, 2023.
Lhe LV wth Ke C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Isles v. Evans, 225 F.2d 235 (5th Cir. 1955)
- Diaz v. Jaguar Rest. Grp., LLC, 627 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2010)
- Warrington v. Patel, 2006 WL 2620302 (M.D. Fla. 2024)