The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
L. YVONNE BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 2:18-cv-714-FtM-38MRM
FLORIDA GULF COAST
UNIVERSITY BOARD OF
TRUSTEES, KEN KAVANAGH,
KARL SMESKO, RODERICK
ROLLE, KELLY BROCK and
JESSICA HOMER,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
Before the Court is Plaintiff pro se L. Yvonne Brown’s Motion to Declare Order of
Dismissal Void (Doc. 60). Plaintiff claims that the Court’s November 21, 2019 dismissal
order is void because she is lawfully entitled to some form of judicial review and the Court
misapplied the law. Defendants filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. 61), which includes
a request that the Court direct Plaintiff to show cause why she has not violated Federal
Rule 11(b) by falsely representing to the Court that she attempted to confer with counsel
prior to bringing the Motion and for presenting her Motion for the improper purpose of
needlessly increasing the cost of this litigation. For the following reasons, the Motion is
denied.
1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the
Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products
they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s
availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order.
Plaintiff’s Motion seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) which
states:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2)
newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have
been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud
(whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment
has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier
judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is
no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
The decision to grant a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of
the trial court and will only be granted to correct an abuse of discretion. Region 8 Forest
Serv. Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 806 (11th Cir. 1993). “The
courts have delineated three major grounds justifying reconsideration of such a decision:
(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; (3) the
need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Sussman v. Salem, Saxon &
Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994). Furthermore, 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. Court opinions are “not intended as
mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant’s pleasure.” Quaker
Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus., Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1988). The
reconsideration of a previous order is an “extraordinary remedy” and “must set forth facts
or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.”
Ludwig v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., Case No. 8:03-cv-2378-T-17-MAP, 2005 WL
1053691 at *3 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2005).
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Motion and determines that it is without merit.
Plaintiff does not identify new evidence, point to a change in controlling law or material
facts, or show that reconsideration is needed to correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.
As for Defendants’ request for an order to show cause, Rule 11(c)(3) provides that
a court may, on its own initiative, order an attorney or party to show cause why conduct
specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b), representations to the
court. The Court finds no compelling reason to issue an order to show cause in this
particular instance and therefore the request is denied.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff's Motion to Declare Order of Dismissal Void (Doc. 60) DENIED.
(2) Defendants’ request for an order to show cause (Doc. 61) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 10th day of January, 2020.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record