HAWRYCH

v.

NUTRA-LUXE MD LLC

OPINION AND ORDER1

On Defendants’ motions, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Andrew Hawrych, M.D.’s amended complaint (Doc. 54). (Doc. 64). Dr. Hawrych now moves the Court to reconsider portions of that order. (Doc. 66). Defendants Peter Von Berg and Nutra-Luxe, M.D., LLC oppose the motion. (Doc. 67). For the following reasons, the motion is granted to the extent that Count VII is dismissed with prejudice only as to Lash HoldCo, LLC and Nutraluxe Global; otherwise, the motion is denied.

Lash-Global moved to dismiss Counts I, IV, and VII (Doc. 56). The Court granted Defendants’ motions, dismissed Counts I, II, IV, and VII with prejudice, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims that remained. (Doc. 64). Dr. Hawrych moves the Court to reconsider its dismissal of Counts IV and VII. (Doc. 66).

LEGAL STANDARD

Reconsideration of an order may be justified on three grounds: “(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” Cazorla Salinas v. 2 The Court’s order dismissing this case provides a detailed factual background. (Doc. 64). Weinkle, 14–CV–62481, 2015 WL 11198008, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2015) (citation omitted). But “[a] motion for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F. 3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Reconsideration of a previous order is a rare and extraordinary remedy. See

Schwarz v. Villages Charter Sch., Inc., 5:12–CV–177–OC–34PRL, 2015 WL 12856106, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2015).

DISCUSSION

Dr. Hawrych first asks the Court to clarify its order on Count VII for unjust enrichment. (Doc. 66 at 4). The amended complaint names all Defendants in Count VII (Doc. 54 at 17–18), but only Lash-Global argued for its dismissal (Doc. 56). The Court’s analysis of the claim addressed Lash- Global’s arguments, but its disposition did not distinguish between Lash-

Global, Von Berg, and Nutra-Luxe. (Doc. 64 at 18–20, 22). While motions for reconsideration are rarely granted, there is need for a minor correction here. Accordingly, Count VII is dismissed with prejudice only as to Lash- Global. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count

VII’s unjust enrichment claim related to Von Berg and Nutra-Luxe for the reasons stated in the Court’s previous order. Dr. Hawrych makes more substantive arguments about the Court’s dismissal of Count IV. He argues that his negligence claim is based on Von

Berg and Nutra-Luxe’s breach of their duty to disclose his ownership interest to Lash-Global, while his breach of contract claim is based on Von Berg and Nutra-Luxe’s contractual obligation to pay Dr. Hawrych 10% of the sale proceeds.³ (Doc. 66 at 7). He argues this distinction makes dismissal improper. (Id.). Dr. Hawrych also objects to the Court’s reference to Justice Pariente’s concurrence from Tiara Condominium Association, Inc.,4 in concluding that the independent tort doctrine required dismissal of the negligence count. (Doc. 66 at 8–10).

But Dr. Hawrych briefly approximated these arguments in his response opposing dismissal. (Doc. 57 ¶¶ 65–67). In the present motion, Dr. Hawrych has failed to alert the Court to an intervening change in the controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or manifest

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED: (1) Plaintiff Dr. Hawrych’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 66) is GRANTED to the extent that Count VII is DISMISSED with prejudice only as to Lash-Global. Otherwise, Dr. Hawrych’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 66) is DENIED. (2) Count VII remains pending against Von Berg and Nutra-Luxe. (3) The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count VII

or the other counts that remain pending. Those counts and this action

are DISMISSED without prejudice. (4) The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter an amended judgment consistent with this order. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on June 17, 2022.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record