United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
LIZNELIA BAEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES, L.P., Defendant.
G. BYRON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause comes before the Court on the following:
1. Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 76),
filed February 7, 2017;
2. Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's
Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 84), filed February 16,
3. Defendant's Objection to Magistrate's Order (Doc.
94), filed March 1, 2017; and
4. Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Objection to
Magistrate's Order (Doc. 95), filed March 6, 2017.
class action lawsuit arises out of Plaintiff's
receipt-and the receipt by approximately 34, 000 other
individuals-of a dunning letter from Defendant which sought
partial payment of a debt that is barred by the applicable
statute of limitations. Plaintiff claims that the dunning
letter violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(“FDCPA”) due to Defendant's failure to
disclose to the recipient that a partial payment on a time-
barred debt “revives” the debt under Florida law,
thus subjecting the recipient to liability anew. In this way,
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's dunning letter
misrepresents the true character and legal status of the
underlying debt and otherwise constitutes a misleading and
unfair means of collecting or attempting to collect a debt.
12, 2016, Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings and,
on August 1, 2016, Defendant moved for summary judgment. On
January 30, 2017, the Court converted Defendant's motion
for judgment on the pleadings into a motion for summary
judgment, considered the motion together with Defendant's
other later-filed motion for summary judgment, and denied
both motions. Defendant now asks the Court to reconsider its
denial of the converted motion for summary judgment
(Defendant's former motion for judgment on the
on February 24, 2017, class counsel moved to allow
co-counsel, David K. Lietz, to appear pro hac vice.
On February 27, 2017, the presiding Magistrate Judge granted
the motion over Defendant's opposition. Defendant now
appeals from the Magistrate's decision as well.
Motion for Reconsideration
is an extraordinary remedy which will only be granted upon a
showing of one of the following: (1) an intervening change in
law, (2) the discovery of new evidence which was not
available at the time the Court rendered its decision, or (3)
the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.
Fla. Coll. of Osteopathic Med., Inc. v. Dean Witter
Reynolds, Inc., 12 F.Supp.2d 1306, 1308 (M.D. Fla.
1998). It is wholly inappropriate in a motion for
reconsideration to relitigate the merits of the case or to
“vent dissatisfaction with the Court's
reasoning.” Madura v. BAC Home Loans Servicing
L.P., No. 8:11-cv-2511-T-33TBM, 2013 WL 4055851, at *2
(M.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2013). Instead, the party moving for
reconsideration must set forth “strongly
convincing” reasons for the Court to change its prior
decision. Id. at *1.
motion for reconsideration, Defendant contends that the Court
clearly erred when it found that the legal theory on which
Plaintiff premises her FDCPA claims-that a partial payment on
a time-barred debt revives the debt-is an accurate
representation of Florida law. Defendant takes the position
that a case Plaintiff cites in her Complaint does not support
her legal theory. Defendant then focuses on Plaintiff's
admission in response to Defendant's motion for judgment
on the pleadings that she was incorrect to cite that case in
her Complaint. As a result, Defendant ...