Filed: Jun. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 27, 2019
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, JR. , District Judge . In the instant action, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after Defendant Holiday Al NIC Management LLC (" Holiday Al "), incorrectly named as Holiday Al Management Sub LLC, identified one of its members is domiciled in the same state as Plaintiff, which destroys complete diversity. (Doc. 94 (" Order ").) Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the Order based on his belief that Holiday Al, fe
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, JR. , District Judge . In the instant action, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after Defendant Holiday Al NIC Management LLC (" Holiday Al "), incorrectly named as Holiday Al Management Sub LLC, identified one of its members is domiciled in the same state as Plaintiff, which destroys complete diversity. (Doc. 94 (" Order ").) Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the Order based on his belief that Holiday Al, fee..
More
ORDER
ROY B. DALTON, JR., District Judge.
In the instant action, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after Defendant Holiday Al NIC Management LLC ("Holiday Al"), incorrectly named as Holiday Al Management Sub LLC, identified one of its members is domiciled in the same state as Plaintiff, which destroys complete diversity. (Doc. 94 ("Order").) Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the Order based on his belief that Holiday Al, feeling pressure from the Court to establish its members' citizenship, "contacted Member Robert Allen Green and told him to get a random office space with utilities and suddenly claim domicile . . . after the fact and hope the Judge buys it." (Doc. 96, p. 2.) Plaintiff contends this member is domiciled in Utah, not Arizona, and submits records from his private investigator in support. (Id.; Doc. 96-1.) On review, the Motion is due to be denied.1
Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is appropriate on the basis of: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) clear error or manifest injustice. See Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994) (noting that courts have generally granted such relief in those three circumstances). "The Court's reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy, to be employed sparingly." Mannings v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough Cty., 149 F.R.D. 235, 235 (M.D. Fla. 1993) (citation omitted). "[T]he decision to grant such relief is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge . . . ." Region 8 Forest Serv. Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 806 (11th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
Here, Plaintiff fails to meet this extraordinary standard for reconsideration. In response to the Court's latest order to show cause, Holiday Al presented evidence, in the form of an affidavit from Mr. Green and a utility bill, to establish Mr. Green's citizenship in Arizona. (Docs. 93-1, 93-2.) This resulted from Holiday Al's first attempts to directly contact all individual members to establish their citizenship. (Doc. 93, pp. 1-2.) Such evidence suffices to establish domicile, and Plaintiff's Motion and submissions do not persuade the Court otherwise.2 Because Mr. Green's Arizona citizenship destroys complete diversity in this diversity jurisdiction case, the Court will not revisit its Order dismissing Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 94.) The Motion is denied.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Doc. 94 Final Order in Light of New Evidence (Doc. 96) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.
