SUNFLOWER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
v.
EVEREST NATIONAL 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 denied the defendant's motion to reconsider its prior order on expert testimony admissibility, finding no clear error and clarifying specific testimony issues.
The defendant insurance company moved to reconsider the court's order on the admissibility of plaintiff's expert testimony, specifically regarding the…
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 Reliability Of Expert Methodology cases and more on FLexlaw
expert Jeffrey Pellet used a reliable methodology in reaching his conclusions, and (2) clarify whether Plaintiff’s Expert Rocco Calaci can testify about mesocyclonic activity, tornadic vortices, and wind funneling. Reconsideration is “an extraordinary remedy which must be used sparingly.” Guevara v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 15-24294-CIV, 2017 WL 6597980, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 26, 2017) (J. Williams) (citation omitted). “Moreover, a motion for reconsideration should not be used as a ‘vehicle to present authorities available at the time of the first decision or to reiterate arguments previously made.’” Compagnoni v. United States, No. 94-0813-CIV, 1997 WL 416482, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 13, 1997) (J. Marcus) (citation omitted), aff'd, 173 F. 3d 1369 (11th Cir. 1999).
There are only three bases for granting a motion for reconsideration: “1) an
intervening change in controlling law; 2) the availability of new evidence; and 3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Williams v. Cruise Ships Catering & Serv. Int'l, N.V., 320 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1357 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (J. Gold).
Everest argues that my conclusions were clear error. “Clear error is a highly deferential standard of review.” Holladay v. Allen, 555 F. 3d 1346, 1354 (11th Cir. 2009)). “A factual finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (quotation omitted).
Or, as Judge Altman recently explained, “To be clearly erroneous, a decision must strike us as more than just maybe or probably wrong; it must . . . strike us as wrong with the force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated dead fish.” Howzell v. Saul, 20-80142- CIV, 2020 WL 5077029, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2020) (J. Altman) (quoting Parts
& Elec. Motors, Inc. v. Sterling Elec., Inc., 866 F. 2d 228, 233 (7th Cir. 1988)).
With regard to Mr. Pellet’s testimony, Everest merely regurgitates the same factual and legal arguments it made in its briefing on the underlying motion. For example, the Motion to Reconsider quotes at length from pages 78-80, 114, and 166 of Mr. Pellet’s deposition. ECF No. 141 at 2-4. All of these excerpts were cited in Everest’s Motion to Strike. ECF 92 at 6. All were considered in reaching my conclusion. ECF No. 138 at 13 (“I have reviewed the portions of the deposition cited by Everest.”).
In short, the Court did not, and does not, agree with Everest’s position. That disagreement does not constitute clear error. Everest next seeks clarification of my prior Order regarding Mr. Calaci. As Everest correctly notes, the Discussion section of the Order stated that Mr. Calaci could not testify about mesocyclonic activity or tornadic vortices, but the conclusion erroneously stated that Everest’s Motion to Strike Mr. Colaci’s testimony was denied in full. An Amended Order has been entered that resolves this issue. ECF No. 143.
Finally, Everest notes that my Order did not address potential testimony by Mr. Calaci’s about wind funneling. Everest points out that Sunflower did not oppose excluding this testimony. Everest asks that the Order be amended to specifically preclude Mr. Calaci from testifying about wind funneling. The Order did not address wind funneling because Mr. Calaci’s expert report does not propose that he would offer an opinon on this topic. See ECF No. 138 at 14 (summarizing expert’s report, ECF 92-4 at 31-32). Perhaps that is why Sunflower
did not oppose excluding the non-existent testimony. Because the issue was not joined for decision, nor did it appear to present a live controversy, I did not address it. That conclusion was not clear error. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers this 11th day of February, 2021, at West Palm Beach in the Southern District of Florida.
BRUCE E. REINHART
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Compania De Elaborados De Café v. Cardinal Cap. Mgmt., Inc., 401 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (S.D. Fla. 2004)…riate where, for example, the Court has patently misunderstood a party, where there is an intervening change in controlling law or the facts of a case, or where there is manifest injustice. See id.; Compagnoni v. United States, No. 94-813-Civ, 1997 WL 416482, at *2 (S.D.Fla. May 13, 1997). In order to demonstrate clear error, the movant must do more than simply restate his or her previous arguments, and any arguments the movant failed to raise in the earlier motion will be deemed waived. See McCo…1 / 2
-
Sunflower Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Everest Nat'l Ins. Co., 2017 WL 6597980 (S.D. Fla. 2021)…d). “Moreover, a motion for reconsideration should not be used as a ‘vehicle to present authorities available at the time of the first decision or to reiterate arguments previously made.’” Compagnoni v. United States, No. 94-0813-CIV, 1997 WL 416482, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 13, 1997) (J. Marcus) (citation omitted), aff'd, 173 F. 3d 1369 (11th Cir. 1999). There are only three bases for granting a motion for reconsideration: “1) an intervening change in controlling law; 2) the availab…1 / 2
-
Parviz v. Fed. Detention Ctr. Miami (S.D. Fla. 2025)…red on FLSD Docket 09/10/2025 Page 6 of 6 For all these reasons, Parviz "has failed to proffer facts or law of a strongly convincing nature that would induce [us] to employ the extraordinary remedy of reconsideration.” Guevara v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 2017 WL 6597980, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 26, 2017) (Williams, J.); see also Stevens v. United States, 2010 WL 11506726, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 20, 2010) (Dimitrouleas, J.)(“Motions for [r]econsideration under Rule 59(e) should not be granted, absent highly unusual circ…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Cruise Ships Catering & Serv. Int'l, 320 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (S.D. Fla. 2004)
- Holladay v. Allen, 555 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2009)
- Parts & Elec. Motors, Inc. v. Sterling Elec., Inc., 866 F.2d 228 (7th Cir. 1988)
- Compagnoni v. United States, 173 F.3d 1369 (11th Cir. 1999)
- Sunflower Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Everest Nat'l Ins. Co., 2017 WL 6597980 (S.D. Fla. 2021)