HOWARD
v.
AIA HOLDINGS, INC
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 plaintiffs' motions for reconsideration, finding no clear error in prior orders dismissing their complaint without prejudice.
Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of orders that dismissed their corrected amended complaint without prejudice. They argued the court made factual …
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 Rule 12(B)(6) Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Dominic Howard’s (“Howard”) and Karen Haas’ (“Haas”) Motions for Reconsideration [D.E. 124, 125] of the Undersigned’s prior Orders dismissing without prejudice, and with leave to amend, the Corrected Amended Complaint (“CAC”) [D.E. 122, 123]. According to Plaintiffs, some of the factual assertions articulated in the Orders are clear error and need correction. After careful review of the motions, responses, replies, the relevant authorities, and for the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs’ Motions for Reconsideration are DENIED.
I. ANALYSIS
First, contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, the Court treated as true all of Plaintiffs’ non-conclusory factual allegations.1 Moreover, neither of the Orders made any findings of facts beyond the four corners of the complaint. All factual statements articulated in the background sections of the Orders, and elsewhere, were derived from the Undersigned’s reliance on the facts asserted in the CAC and the materials attached therein. [D.E. 35 and Exhibits A through V]; see Crowder v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 963 F. 3d 1197, 1202 (11th Cir. 2020) (“Exhibits attached to the complaint are treated as part of the complaint for Rule 12(b)(6) purposes.”) (citation omitted). To the extent that Plaintiffs point to factual statements in the Orders that differ in terminology from the factual allegations encountered in CAC, we do not find these differences to amount to clear error. First, as Plaintiffs acknowledge in their motion, some of the factual differences stemmed, in part, from a lack of clarity in the CAC. [D.E. 124 at 4 n.3] (“Plaintiffs will clarify upon amendment”). Second, and more importantly, none of the alleged improper statements had any impact on the
Orders’ legal conclusions. Other than conclusorily asserting that the alleged misstatements go to the heart of this case, Plaintiffs’ Motions do nothing to establish such materiality. In other words, and to illustrate, whether Defendant Yousef is described as an “unauthorized bail fugitive recovery person” as opposed to “an illegal
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motions for reconsideration of this Court’s prior orders [D.E. 124, 125] are DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 7th day of November, 2022.
/s/ Edwin G. Torres
EDWIN G. TORRES
United States Magistrate Judge