Filed: May 18, 2018
Latest Update: May 18, 2018
Summary: ORDER DARRIN P. GAYLES , District Judge . THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of or Re-lief from Order Dismissing Case with Prejudice and Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 33]. The Court has reviewed the Motion and the record and is fully ad-vised. "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 cor
Summary: ORDER DARRIN P. GAYLES , District Judge . THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of or Re-lief from Order Dismissing Case with Prejudice and Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 33]. The Court has reviewed the Motion and the record and is fully ad-vised. "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 corr..
More
ORDER
DARRIN P. GAYLES, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of or Re-lief from Order Dismissing Case with Prejudice and Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 33]. The Court has reviewed the Motion and the record and is fully ad-vised.
"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, 1342 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (quoting Cover v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 148 F.R.D. 294, 295 (M.D. Fla. 1993)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Arguments that were or should have been raised in the first instance are not appropriate grounds for a motion for reconsideration. See Gougler v. Sirius Prods., Inc., 370 F.Supp.2d 1185, 1189 (S.D. Ala. 2005). Furthermore, "[i]t is an im-proper use of `the motion to reconsider to ask the Court to rethink what the Court . . . already thought through B rightly or wrongly.'" Z.K. Marine, Inc. v. M/V Archigetis, 808 F.Supp. 1561, 1563 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). The reconsideration decision is granted only in extraordinary circum-stances 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 quota-tions omitted). Plaintiff fails to establish any clear error or manifest injustice in the Court's prior ruling. The Court finds the agreement to be unambiguous. In addition, any mistake in identify-ing the drafter of the agreement is harmless as the "construction-against-the-draftsman" rule only applies to ambiguous agreements. The Court only raised that rule as an alternative ground for dismissing the Complaint. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of or Relief from Order Dismissing Case with Prejudice and Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 33] is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.
