HALES
v.
PRESTON
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 it was plainly without merit and did not meet the high standard required for such motions.
Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of a prior order. The prior order had treated their earlier motion as one to transfer venue under 28 U.S…
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 Motion To Transfer Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
Presently before the Court is Defendants' “FRCP 60(b) Motion for Reconsideration Re: Forum Non Conveniens—28 U.S.C. 1404(a)" (Doc. 78). No response is necessary because the motion is plainly without merit.
First, the Court's order (Doc. 55) treated Defendants' prior motion (Doc. 54) as one to transfer divisions because that is what the motion said that it was. The prior motion stated that it was filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Doc. 54 at 1) (“Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28 USC 1404(a)"). And § 1404(a) provides that “a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (emphasis added). Indeed, Defendants
1
specifically cited the language of § 1404(a) in their prior motion. (Doc. 54 at 2). Defendants also cited cases addressing the factors courts use to decide whether to transfer to another division. (Id. at 5). Thus, the Court did not "mistakenly characterize[] the defendants' motion” as seeking to transfer divisions. (Doc. 78 at 2). Rather, the Court treated Defendants' motion to be what Defendants said it was a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer divisions.
Second, Defendants' motion for reconsideration makes no sense given the Court's prior order. The Court made clear in its prior order that the trial in this case would be held in Gainesville. (Doc. 55 at 1) (“If there is a trial in this matter, then it will be held in the federal courthouse in Gainesville with the undersigned presiding.") (emphasis added). The Court also made clear in its prior order that it would “consider holding pretrial hearings in Gainesville upon request of the parties." (Id. at 1 n.1). And there has been no request for such a Gainesville hearing that has been denied. So, the Court has no idea why Defendants filed the current motion asking the Court to reconsider. In any event, the motion does not come close to meeting the high standard for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., 741 F. 3d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that to obtain
2
reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), a party "must demonstrate a justification so compelling that the district court is required to vacate its order") (cleaned up). Accordingly, Defendants' motion for reconsideration (Doc. 78) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED this the 18th day of February 2025.
Is) Zachary C. Bolitho Zachary C. Bolitho United States Magistrate Judge
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Aldana v. DEL Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., 741 F.3d 1349 (11th Cir. 2014)