ARTHREX, INC. v. PARCUS MEDICAL, LLC, 2:10-cv-151-FtM-38DNF. (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20140414790
Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 10, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 10, 2014
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Unopposed Motion of Parcus Medical, LLC for Reconsideration Regarding the Court's Orders Denying Motions for Extension of Time to File ( Doc. #383 ) filed on April 9, 2014. Reconsideration of a court's previous order is an extraordinary remedy, and thus, is a power which should be used sparingly. Carter v. Premier Restaurant Management , No. 2:06-CV-212-FTM-99DNF, 2006 WL 2620302, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 13
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Unopposed Motion of Parcus Medical, LLC for Reconsideration Regarding the Court's Orders Denying Motions for Extension of Time to File ( Doc. #383 ) filed on April 9, 2014. Reconsideration of a court's previous order is an extraordinary remedy, and thus, is a power which should be used sparingly. Carter v. Premier Restaurant Management , No. 2:06-CV-212-FTM-99DNF, 2006 WL 2620302, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 13,..
More
ORDER1
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Unopposed Motion of Parcus Medical, LLC for Reconsideration Regarding the Court's Orders Denying Motions for Extension of Time to File (Doc. #383) filed on April 9, 2014. Reconsideration of a court's previous order is an extraordinary remedy, and thus, is a power which should be used sparingly. Carter v. Premier Restaurant Management, No. 2:06-CV-212-FTM-99DNF, 2006 WL 2620302, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 13, 2006) (citing American Ass'n of People with Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F.Supp.2d 1337, 1339 (M.D. Fla. 2003)). The courts have "delineated three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Susman v. Salem, Saxon & Meilson, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 904 (M.D. Fla. 1994). Having found no reason to justify granting reconsideration, the motion is denied and the scheduling deadlines in this matter remain.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Unopposed Motion of Parcus Medical, LLC for Reconsideration Regarding the Court's Orders Denying Motions for Extension of Time to File (Doc. #383) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
Source: Leagle
