ORDER1

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff, Regina Reid's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Denying Her Motion for Fed R. Civ. P. 11 Sanctions (Doc. #31) filed on October 8, 2014. No response in opposition has been filed, however, due to the nature of Reid's Motion none is necessary.

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, 2006 WL 2620302 (M.D. Fla. September 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). "A motion for reconsideration should raise new issues, not merely readdress issues litigated previously." Paine Webber Income Props. Three Ltd. Partnership v. Mobil Oil Corp., 902 F.Supp. 1514, 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1995). The motion must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to demonstrate to the court the reason to reverse its prior decision. Carter, 2006 WL 2620302 at *1 (citing Taylor Woodrow Construction Corp. v. Sarasota/Manatee Authority, 814 F.Supp. 1072, 1072-1073 (M.D. Fla. 1993)). A motion for reconsideration does not provide an opportunity to simply reargue-or argue for the first time- an issue the Court has already determined. Carter, 2006 WL 2620302 at * 1. The Court's opinions "are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant's pleasure." Id. (citing Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Industries, Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1988)). "The burden is upon the movant to establish the extraordinary circumstances supporting reconsideration." Mannings v. School Bd. Of Hillsboro County, Fla., 149 F.R.D. 235, 235 (M.D. Fla. 1993). "Unless the movant's arguments fall into the limited categories outlined above, a motion to reconsider must be denied." Carter, 2006 WL 2620302 at *1.

On September 29, 2014, the Court issued an Order denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 11 sanctions (Doc. #28). The Plaintiff's sought Rule 11 sanctions against the Defendant arguing the Defendant had no factual basis to support its asserted affirmative defenses. The Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 11 sanctions noting that a weak factual basis in asserting an affirmative defense is not grounds for sanctions under Rule 11. The Plaintiff moves for reconsideration arguing that the Plaintiff's factual basis was not just weak it was non-existent.

The Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration lacks merit. The Plaintiff fails to present an intervening change in the controlling law, new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Susman, 153 F.R.D. at 904. Instead, the Plaintiff merely makes the same arguments presented in her original Motion. Thus, the Motion for Reconsideration is due to be denied. Carter, 2006 WL 2620302 at *1.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

The Plaintiff, Regina Reid's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Denying Her Motion for Fed R. Civ. P. 11 Sanctions (Doc. #31) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED.