Filed: Sep. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 11, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BETH BLOOM , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration ("Motion") of the Court's order of dismissal, ECF No. [5] ("Order"), in which the Court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction with respect to Plaintiff's claim for retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq. (the "FLSA"). "[T]he courts have delineated three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1)
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BETH BLOOM , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration ("Motion") of the Court's order of dismissal, ECF No. [5] ("Order"), in which the Court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction with respect to Plaintiff's claim for retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq. (the "FLSA"). "[T]he courts have delineated three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) ..
More
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
BETH BLOOM, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration ("Motion") of the Court's order of dismissal, ECF No. [5] ("Order"), in which the Court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction with respect to Plaintiff's claim for retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. (the "FLSA").
"[T]he courts have delineated three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Williams v. Cruise Ships Catering & Serv. Int'l, N.V., 320 F.Supp.2d 1347, 1357-58 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (citing Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994)); see Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 181 F.Supp.2d 1366, 1369 (S.D. Fla. 2002) ("The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.") (quoting Z.K. Marine Inc. v. M/V Archigetis, 808 F.Supp. 1561, 1563 (S.D. Fla. 1992).
Upon review, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion, ECF No. [6], and VACATES the Order, ECF No. [5]. The Clerk of Court shall REOPEN this case. Plaintiff shall file new summonses for issuance, and proceed with service of process in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
DONE AND ORDERED.
