MALHOTRA
v.
KUMAR
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 plaintiff's motion for reconsideration because it failed to present extraordinary circumstances and improperly sought to relitigate decided issues.
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's prior order dismissing his second amended complaint, including cla…
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 Local Rules Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Jeevan Malhotra's Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 64). The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff's second amended complaint, including dismissal with prejudice of his claims for promissory estoppel and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Doc. 63). Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider dismissal with prejudice of these two claims.
Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary measure that should be applied sparingly. Adams v. Beoneman, 335 F.R.D. 452, 454 (M.D. Fla. 2020). Court orders are not intended as first drafts subject to revisions at a litigant's pleasure, so a movant must establish extraordinary circumstances supporting reconsideration. Gold Cross EMS, Inc. v. Children's Hosp. of Ala.,
108 F. Supp. 3d 1376, 1384 (S.D. Ga. 2015). “A motion for reconsideration should raise new issues, not merely readdress issues previously litigated." PaineWebber Income Props. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 902 F. Supp. 1514, 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1995).
After review of Plaintiffs motion and applicable law, the Court finds his motion to be meritless. Plaintiff presents no extraordinary circumstances to warrant reconsideration. His attempts to clarify his claims are unmoving, and none of the cases he cites compel a different result. Plaintiff cannot use a motion for reconsideration merely to relitigate an issue the Court already decided. What's more, his motion failed to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g).¹ Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion (Doc. 64) is denied.
The Court notes that Plaintiff's third amended complaint is due on or before May 19, 2025. (Doc. 63). Given Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration and his pro se status, the Court will permit Plaintiff until May 23, 2025, to file his third amended complaint.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 64) is DENIED.
2. On or before May 23, 2025, Plaintiff must file a Third Amended Complaint. A failure to do so will result in this case's dismissal without further notice.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this May 15, 2025.
Sheri Polster Rappell
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- PaineWebber Income Props. Three Ltd. P'ship Ex Rel. Third Income Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 902 F. Supp. 1514 (M.D. Fla. 1995)
- Sheets v. City of Punta Gorda (M.D. Fla. 2026)