PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC.
v.
PATRICIA FIGAREAU
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 because they failed to present newly discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.
Defendants sought reconsideration of an order denying their motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment for Publix. They argued the prio…
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 Manifest Error Of Law Or Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 108), Notice of Filing Supplemental Authority (Dkt. 109), and Publix’ Response in Opposition (Dkt. 110). Upon consideration, the motion is DENIED. Defendants seek reconsideration of the order denying their motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment in Publix’ favor. See (Dkt. 104). Defendants contend that the order “mandate[s] that Defendants pay Publix an amount of money that exceeds what Publix or Defendants could have ever recovered in the underlying medical malpractice action on a claim for past medical expenses,” and that Publix was limited to reimbursement in the amount of “reasonable” expenses related to the “injuries germane to the medical malpractice action.” (Dkt. 108 at 1-3). These contentions do not warrant reconsideration. As the Eleventh Circuit instructs, The only grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration are newly- discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact. A motion
for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise arguments, or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.
Smith v. Ocwen Fin., 488 F. App’x 426, 428 (11th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted); see also Fenello v. Bank of Am., NA, 577 F. App’x 899, 903 n.7 (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that an “intervening change in controlling law” may warrant reconsideration). Here, as Publix correctly observes, Defendants do not present any grounds warranting reconsideration. (Dkt. 110 at 2). Rather, their contentions regarding the extent of Publix’ lien were previously raised and considered. See (Dkt. 104). Further, they do not present newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in controlling law, and their notice of supplemental authority is immaterial to the issues raised. (Dkt. 109). Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is DENIED. (Dkt. 108). DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of October, 2020.
/s/ James D. Whittemore
JAMES D. WHITTEMORE
United States District Judge Copies to: Counsel of Record