FITZGERALD
v.
MCNAE
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 District Court denied defendant McNae's motion for reconsideration of an earlier order denying her motion to withdraw from representation. The court found that McNae failed to meet the legal standard for reconsideration, which requires either an intervening change in controlling law, newly discovered evidence, or clear error or manifest injustice.
The court denied the motion for reconsideration because McNae failed to demonstrate an intervening change in law, newly discovered evidence, or clear error or manifest injustice. The court also noted that Florida Bar Rule 4-1.16(c) requires lawyers to continue representation when ordered to do so by a tribunal, notwithstanding good cause for termination.
[1] A motion for reconsideration is granted only in extraordinary circumstances and is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge.
[2] Grounds justifying reconsideration include an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or manifest inju…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Courts have distilled three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.”
Establishes the legal standard for granting motions for reconsideration
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant McNae filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order Denying Motion to Withdraw. McNae argued that the Court's Order overlooked cri…
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 Need To Correct Clear Error Or Manifest Injustice cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendant Ronda McNae's Emergency Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification (the "Motion"), (ECF No. 328). Having reviewed the Motion, pertinent portions of the record, and is otherwise fully advised of the premises, the Court DENIES the Motion.
In the Motion for Reconsideration, Defendant seeks reconsideration of this Court's Order Denying Motion to Withdraw (the "Court's Order"), (ECF No. 236). Plaintiff asserts that the Court's Order "overlooks critical information regarding paragraphs 4 and 7." (Mot. at 1). "Courts have distilled three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice." Instituto de Prevision Militar v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 485 F. Supp. 2d 1340, 1343 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Williams v. QuikTrip Corp., 817 Fed. Appx. 743, 747 (11th Cir. 2020) ("The only grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact." (alterations
omitted)). The reconsideration decision is granted only in extraordinary circumstances and is "committed to the sound discretion of the district judge." Tristar Lodging, Inc. v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1286, 1301 (M.D. Fla. 2006) (quoting Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assocs., Inc., 763 F. 2d 1237, 1238-39 (11th Cir. 1985)) (internal quotations omitted).
Defendant fails to meet the legal standard for reconsideration. The Motion for Reconsideration does not demonstrate a change in the law or clear error and does not present newly discovered evidence that would justify a reconsideration. Moreover, parties “cannot use a motion [for reconsideration] to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, 408 F/3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005); Oscar v. United States, no. 18-21368-Civ, 2018 WL 3946475, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2018).
Additionally, the Motion repeatedly references the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar in support of withdrawal but overlooks Rule 4-1.16(c), which states in relevant part that "[w]hen ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation." See Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, Rule 4-1.16.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration, (ECF No. 328), is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 25 day of March 2025.
Copies provided to: All Counsel of Record
JOSE E MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assocs., Inc., 763 F.2d 1237 (11th Cir. 1985)
- Tristar Lodging, Inc. v. Arch Speciality Ins., 2006 WL 1528792 (M.D. Fla. 2006)
- Instituto De Prevision Militar v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 485 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (S.D. Fla. 2007)