651 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 78 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-05
The court denied the defendant's motion for reconsideration because the court lacks jurisdiction to review its own remand order based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and even if it had jurisdiction, the defendant's arguments for excusable neglect were unavailing.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-09-15
Crew members of the yacht Utopia IV brought claims against the vessel and its operator for injuries sustained in a 2021 collision and subsequent incidents, seeking damages for failure to provide maintenance and cure, Jones Act negligence, and unseaworthiness. The district court g
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-09-14
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration because she failed to provide a valid basis for relief, such as new evidence or clear error, and merely rehashed arguments already rejected.
-
11th Cir.·
2025-09-10
The court held that motions to reopen, supplement, or amend a § 2255 petition filed while an appeal is pending are generally considered second or successive filings requiring prior authorization, unless the prior judgment was vacated and remanded.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-09-10
The court granted reconsideration in part, finding Martinez was not entitled to salary as COO and that Grant did not violate the stipulation by hiring counsel or paying an accountant, but agreed Martinez was entitled to attorney's fees for contempt.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-08-24
The court denied defendants' motions for reconsideration of a prior order and for class decertification.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-08-21
The court held that the plaintiff's motion to reopen the case was denied because it did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and was not filed within a reasonable time.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-08-13
The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to alter the judgment, recalculating disgorgement damages and awarding prejudgment interest at the rate set by 26 U.S.C. § 6621(a)(2).
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-07-25
The court held that a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) is the proper mechanism to request explicit monetary amounts in a judgment and to seek discretionary pre-judgment interest on an arbitral award.
-
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment, finding no manifest error of law or fact and that the plaintiff failed to present newly discovered evidence.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-14
A pro se plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal of his complaint for failure to pay the filing fee or seek in forma pauperis status. The court denied his motion for reconsideration, holding that he presented no extraordinary circumstances warranting revision of the d
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-14
In this pro se civil rights case, the district court denied plaintiff Andrew Sheets' motion for reconsideration of a dismissal entered for failure to pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis. The court held that plaintiff presented no extraordinary circumstances wa
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-02
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration because it failed to present new evidence or demonstrate manifest error of law or fact, and instead sought to relitigate previously decided matters.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-06-18
The Court dismissed Acute's appeal of the Sale Order as untimely and its appeal of the Order Denying Reconsideration for lack of jurisdiction, finding it was not a final order and lacked grounds for interlocutory appeal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-16
The court held that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied because she failed to demonstrate manifest error of law or fact, or newly discovered evidence.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-13
The court held that plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the order enforcing class action waivers was denied because the arguments presented did not meet the standard for reconsideration.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-13
The court denied the motion for reconsideration, finding the defendant failed to meet the standards for altering or amending a non-final order.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-12
The court held that a motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a clear error of law or manifest injustice regarding the timeliness of his response.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-06-11
The court held that a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) must be based on newly discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact, and cannot be used to relitigate old matters or raise arguments that could have been previously presented.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-09
James filed a motion to alter or amend judgment in a civil case, but the district court rejected it because no judgment had been entered in the civil proceeding and because James's underlying motion for a writ of coram nobis should have been filed in the original criminal case, n
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-06-06
The court denied the defendant's motion for reconsideration and motion for sanctions, finding that the arguments were rehashed, the evidence presented was not new, and the defendant failed to meet the standard for sanctions.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-03
The court recommended denying the defendants' motion for reconsideration because the arguments raised were procedurally flawed, contrary to prior positions, and unsupported by controlling precedent.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-05-28
The court granted reconsideration of its prior order to certify the judgment for immediate appeal, finding no just reason for delay under Rule 54(b).
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-05-22
The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion, denying reconsideration but granting leave to amend the complaint.
-
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, finding no newly discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-05-07
The court held that new evidence presented by the plaintiff satisfied the heightened threshold for reconsideration of a prior discovery order, and that the witnesses in question were managing agents subject to deposition under Rule 30(b)(1).
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2025-05-05
The court denied Corteva's motion for reargument, finding that Corteva failed to demonstrate that the court overlooked controlling precedent or misapprehended the law or facts. The court reiterated that motions for reargument cannot be used to rehash previously decided arguments
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-04-29
The court held that it had previously erred in denying the City of Miami's motion for summary judgment on the Monell claim, as the evidence relied upon (prior complaints without demonstrated merit, deposition testimony regarding investigation policies, and settled cases without a
-
The court denied Plaintiff's motions to alter or amend the judgment and denied his motions to stay execution, finding no basis for reconsideration and no grounds to waive the supersedeas bond requirement.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-04-22
The court held that a motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy that cannot be used to relitigate old matters or raise arguments that could have been presented earlier.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-04-21
The Court denied Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration because it failed to present newly discovered evidence or demonstrate manifest errors of law or fact.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-04-11
The court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the order denying attorney fees, finding no basis under Rules 59(e) or 60(b) to alter or amend the prior decision.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-04-07
The court held that the plaintiff's appeal was not taken in good faith and denied his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
-
The court held that a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) must be based on newly discovered evidence or manifest error, and the petitioner failed to meet this standard for his claims.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-03-19
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment, finding it untimely and lacking merit.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-03-14
The court denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration because it did not present newly discovered evidence or demonstrate manifest error of law or fact.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-03-07
The court denied the defendant's motion to alter or amend the judgment, finding no manifest errors of fact or law, no newly discovered evidence, and no basis for relief under Rule 60(b).
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-02-28
The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish grounds for reconsideration of the order staying the case pending a Multidistrict Litigation decision.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-02-28
The court held that the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment must be denied as it fails to present newly discovered evidence or demonstrate manifest errors of law or fact.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-02-26
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and for leave to amend.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-02-25
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, finding no clear error or manifest injustice, and affirmed the prior award of attorney's fees.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-02-06
The court denied the motion for reconsideration because the plaintiff failed to present a basis for reconsideration under the applicable standards, such as newly discovered evidence or a manifest error of law or fact.
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2025-02-05
The court granted the defendants' motion for reargument, finding that they met their burden to establish a basis for relief under Rule 59. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the issue of punitive damages, concluding that no genuine issu
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-02-05
The court denied the plaintiff's motions for reconsideration, sanctions, and expedited discovery, finding that it had properly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and that sanctions were not warranted.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-01-30
The court held that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the denial of leave to amend was denied because it failed to establish clear error of law and largely attempted to relitigate previously decided issues. The motion for extension of time was granted.
-
The court denied the plaintiff's motions to alter the judgment and for copies, finding no grounds for reconsideration and that further amendment or appeal in forma pauperis would be futile or not in good faith.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-01-17
The court held that it lost subject matter jurisdiction when the plaintiffs failed to timely file their Second Amended Complaint after a prior dismissal with leave to amend, rendering subsequent orders accepting the late filing void.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-01-13
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion for reconsideration, allowing amendment of certain counterclaims and affirmative defenses while denying reconsideration of others.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-01-08
A motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy that should not be used to relitigate issues or raise arguments that could have been presented earlier.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-01-07
The court granted the motion to correct a clerical error in the judgment caption but denied the motion for reconsideration of the substantive dismissal.