UNITED STATES EX REL ANA v. WINTER PARK UROLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.A., 6:10-cv-806-Orl-28GJK. (2012)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20120504f13
Visitors: 13
Filed: May 03, 2012
Latest Update: May 03, 2012
Summary: ORDER JOHN ANTOON, II, District Judge. This cause is before the Court on the Motion for Reconsideration of Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 65, filed April 11, 2012) filed by Defendants and the Response in Opposition thereto (Doc. 66) filed by Plaintiff. Defendants seek reconsideration of this Court's February 7, 2012 Order (Doc. 39) denying their motions to dismiss. In their motion, Defendants identify two Eleventh Circuit court decisions rendered two weeks after the Order was entered, but those cas
Summary: ORDER JOHN ANTOON, II, District Judge. This cause is before the Court on the Motion for Reconsideration of Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 65, filed April 11, 2012) filed by Defendants and the Response in Opposition thereto (Doc. 66) filed by Plaintiff. Defendants seek reconsideration of this Court's February 7, 2012 Order (Doc. 39) denying their motions to dismiss. In their motion, Defendants identify two Eleventh Circuit court decisions rendered two weeks after the Order was entered, but those case..
More
ORDER
JOHN ANTOON, II, District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on the Motion for Reconsideration of Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 65, filed April 11, 2012) filed by Defendants and the Response in Opposition thereto (Doc. 66) filed by Plaintiff. Defendants seek reconsideration of this Court's February 7, 2012 Order (Doc. 39) denying their motions to dismiss.
In their motion, Defendants identify two Eleventh Circuit court decisions rendered two weeks after the Order was entered, but those cases do not alter the law that was applied by this Court in its Order, nor do movants assert that they do so. The movants have not presented any new argument or change in the law that warrants reconsideration of the Order. As noted by Plaintiff, Defendants instead—more than two months after the entry of the Order—seek to reargue the merits of their motions to dismiss and rely on the same case law cited in those motions. This Court already considered and rejected these arguments in its prior Order.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 65) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
