The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 22-cv-23028-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
MARK A. TURNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC,
and AMROCK, LLC,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER ON SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Mark A. Turner’s “Motion Petition
Justice Bloom to Set [Aside] Order Granting Magistrate Report & Recommendation, for
Suppression of Transcript Evidence, Denial of Due Process Civil Rules & Procedure Constituting
a Reversible Appellant Court Error,” ECF No. [125] (“Motion”), which the Court construes as a
second motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff contends he was not afforded an opportunity to refer
to the “audio tape transcription and the court stenographer transcriptions” to support his argument
that Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes and Counsel for Defendants omitted an material term of the
Settlement Agreement. Id. at 2-3. Moreover, Plaintiff believes he was entitled to a hearing before
the Court on whether there was a “meeting of the minds” on the Settlement Agreement. Id. at 3.
Plaintiff thus concludes his case was “nefariously prejudiced,” which constitutes an abuse of
discretion.
As the Court explained in its Order on Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. [124], courts
may grant relief where there is “fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing
party[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). Further, the Rule provides that a court may relieve a party from
an order for “any other reason that justifies relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). In addition, “Rule
60(b)(6) motions must demonstrate that the circumstances are sufficiently extraordinary to warrant
relief.” Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 741 F.3d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir.
2014)(internal quotations and citations omitted). In any event, whether to grant relief pursuant to
Rule 60(b) is ultimately a matter of discretion. Aldana, 741 F.3d at 1355 (citing Cano v. Baker,
435 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal citation and quotations omitted)). A court abuses
its discretion when a “relevant factor deserving a significant weight is overlooked, when an
improper factor deserving of significant weight is overlooked, or when the court considers the
appropriate mix of factors, but commits a palpable error of judgment in calibrating the decisional
scales.” See Williams v. Cruise Ships Catering & Serv. Int’l, N.V., 320 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1358
(S.D. Fla. 2004) (citation omitted). Reconsideration of a previous order is “an extraordinary
remedy, to be employed sparingly.” See Mannings v. School Board of Hillsborough County, 149
F.R.D. 235, 235 (M.D. Fla. 1993).
In its Order adopting the R&R, the Court found that Plaintiff objectively manifested an
intent to be bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement, as shown by the transcript of the
settlement conference on May 18, 2023, and failed to adduce any evidence that Defendants had
agreed to be bound by the purportedly missing Interest and Penalties term. ECF No. [121] at 9. It
thus found the Settlement Agreement was valid and enforceable. Id. In its Order on Motion for
Reconsideration, the Court stated that it discerned no fraud on the part of Defendants or Judge
Otazo-Reyes. ECF No. [124] at 4. Plaintiffs’ legally unsupported arguments do not engage with
those findings but entirely ignores them. As such, there is no basis for revisiting the Court’s
determinations and the Motion must be denied.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion, ECF No. [125], is
DENIED.
Case No. 22-cv-23028-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida on August 29, 2023.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Mark A. Turner
1411 SE 26th Avenue
Homestead, FL 33035