WOODS
v.
REEVE
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 plaintiff Woods' motion for reconsideration of a prior order granting summary judgment to defendants Reeve and Sarcinello. The court found that plaintiff failed to meet the legal standard for reconsideration, as the motion presented no intervening change in law, newly discovered evidence, or clear error.
The Court denied the motion for reconsideration because plaintiff failed to demonstrate any of the three grounds justifying reconsideration: no intervening change in controlling law, no newly discovered evidence, and no clear error or manifest injustice.
[1] Reconsideration of a prior order is granted only in extraordinary circumstances.
[2] Grounds for reconsideration include an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.
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 when a motion for reconsideration may be granted
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Woods sought reconsideration of the Court's Order on Motions for Summary Judgment, asserting that the Court had ignored or misunderstood mat…
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 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of
Order on Motions for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”), (ECF No. 248). Having reviewed
Plaintiff's Motion, Defendants Christopher Reeves and Rick Sarcinello's Responses, (ECF Nos.
253, 254), and the pertinent portions of the record, the Court DENIES the Motion.
In the Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court's Order on
Motions for Summary Judgment (the “Court's Order”), (ECF No. 245). Plaintiff asserts that this
Court ignored or misunderstood material facts and misapplied the applicable law. “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).
Plaintiff 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).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration, (ECF No. 248), is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 6th day of March 2025.
Copies provided to: All Counsel of Record
JOSE E. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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)