UCHE v. ST. LUKES-ST. VINCENTS HEALTHCARE, INC., 3:12-cv-865-J-32JBT. (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20140416951
Visitors: 12
Filed: Mar. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 24, 2014
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge. This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 159). Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court's Order (Doc. 156) denying Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint (Doc. 90). Defendant has responded. (Doc. 164). Reconsideration is only appropriate where controlling law has changed or new evidence has become available, or where reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Cam
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge. This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 159). Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court's Order (Doc. 156) denying Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint (Doc. 90). Defendant has responded. (Doc. 164). Reconsideration is only appropriate where controlling law has changed or new evidence has become available, or where reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Camp..
More
ORDER
TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge.
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 159). Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court's Order (Doc. 156) denying Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint (Doc. 90). Defendant has responded. (Doc. 164).
Reconsideration is only appropriate where controlling law has changed or new evidence has become available, or where reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Campero USA Corp. v. ADS Foodservice, LLC, 916 F.Supp.2d 1284, 1291 (S.D. Fla. 2012). Controlling law has not changed and no new evidence has become available since the filing of Plaintiff's initial motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff moves for reconsideration to correct an error and to prevent manifest injustice. (Doc. 159 at 1). Clear error or manifest injustice occurs when a court misunderstood a party or misapprehended an argument. Id. at 1292-93.
Upon review, there was no clear error or manifest injustice in the Court's prior Order.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 159) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
