BOLTON
v.
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
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 held that a motion for reconsideration must comply with local rules, including providing a memorandum of legal authority and stating a basis for reconsideration.
Plaintiff and Defendant jointly filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's prior denial of their motion for an extension of expert witness disc…
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 Memorandum Of Legal Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
WITNESSES (Doc. No. 28) FILED: February 9, 2023
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. On February 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion seeking extensions of the parties’ expert disclosure deadlines. Doc. No. 24. Upon consideration, the Court denied that motion without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 3.01(a) and for failure to state good cause. Doc. No. 25. Now, rather than filing a renewed motion, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of that Order. Doc. No. 28. On review, however, the motion for reconsideration also fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(a) because it does not include a memorandum of legal authority in support. Nor does the motion set forth a basis for reconsideration. See generally Stallworth v. Omninet Village, L.P., No. 6:16-cv-546-
Orl-31DAB, 2016 WL 10100424, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2016) (“Motions 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.” (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))). Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 28) is DENIED. However, nothing in this Order precludes the parties from renewing the motion for an extension of the expert disclosure deadlines, if such request is made in full compliance with the Local Rules and the requirements of the Case Management and Scheduling Order. See Local Rule 3.01(a); Doc. No. 19, at 10 § (III)(F)(3). See also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 10, 2023.
ayn [...]
LESLIE AN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tristar Lodging, Inc. v. Arch Speciality Ins., 2006 WL 1528792 (M.D. Fla. 2006)