United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court pursuant to Defendant Frank M.
Bafford's motion, filed on August, 10, 2017, entitled
“Motion to Dismiss Determinations Pending Corrections
to Docket and Record, and Motion to Consider All Available
Information and Evidence. Alternatively, Motion for Extension
of Time to Respond to All Pending Matters.” (Doc. #
166). The Motion seeks to reopen discovery and allow Bafford
to present new evidence to the Court. (Id.). While
it is not completely clear as to which order Bafford is
objecting to, in light of the fact that the motion was filed
within a few days of the Order granting summary judgment, the
Court construes it as a motion to reconsider that Order. For
the reasons that follow, the Court denies the motion.
first complained that he did not have certain documents that
had been filed in this case, on September 21, 2016, though he
did not identify which documents he lacked. (Doc. # 108).
Bafford sought numerous stays in an effort to gain more time
to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment, frequently on
the basis that Bafford did not have all of the documents that
had been filed. (Doc. ## 108, 111, 116, 133, 149). Bafford
also previously filed a motion to dismiss on January 23,
2017, alleging that his Due Process rights were violated
because he did not receive certain unspecified documents that
had been filed in this case. (Doc. # 135). After an
interlocutory appeal was dismissed and Defendant MB Reo-FL
Church-2, LLC had responded, the Court denied that motion on
May 16, 2017. (Doc. # 147).
throughout this case, MB Reo served Bafford with the
documents it had filed in this case through four different
methods: by mail to Bafford's residence, where he was
served with the Summons and Complaint; by mail to a post
office box Bafford once said was his preferred method of
receiving documents; by email to the address Bafford first
used to communicate with MB Reo's counsel; and by email
to another address Bafford had used to communicate with
counsel. (Doc. ## 118 at ¶ 2, 145 at ¶ 3). MB Reo
also sent Bafford a copy of the docket and a second copy of
all papers and pleadings it filed in the three months
preceding October of 2016 after Bafford began to complain
that he was missing documents. (Doc. # 118 at ¶ 4).
noted above, the Court construes Bafford's motion as a
motion to reconsider the Court's Order granting summary
judgment in favor of MB Reo. That Order was entered on July
31, 2017. (Doc. # 165). Bafford filed the instant Motion on
August, 10, 2017, within twenty-eight days of the order it
seeks reconsideration of. (Doc. # 166).
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) governs this motion, as it is a
motion for reconsideration based on errors affecting
substantial rights of the parties, filed less than
twenty-eight days after the order that it seeks to correct,
“[A] motion for reconsideration must demonstrate why
the court should reconsider its past decision and set forth
facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the
court to reverse its prior decision.” Fla. Coll. of
Osteopathic Med., Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 12
F.Supp.2d 1306, 1308 (M.D. Fla. 1998). “[I]n the
interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial
resources, reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be
employed sparingly.” Lamar Adver. of Mobile, Inc. v.
City of Lakeland, 189 F.R.D. 480, 489 (M.D. Fla. 1999).
Court recognizes three grounds to justify reconsideration of
a prior order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e):
“(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct
clear error or manifest injustice.” Fla. Coll. of
Osteopathic Med., Inc., 12 F.Supp.2d at 1308. Further, as
explained in Ludwig v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,
“this Court will not reconsider its judgment when the
motion for reconsideration fails to raise new issues but,
instead, relitigates that which the Court previously found
lacking.” No. 8:03-cv-2378-T-17-MAP, 2005 WL 1053691,
at *3-4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2005). In addition, “a
motion for reconsideration is not the proper forum for the
party to vent dissatisfaction with the Court's
reasoning.” Id. at *4. (citation omitted).
motion before the Court is predicated on the same vague
arguments and statements that Bafford has previously made.
Bafford complains that “he did not receive filings in
the mail, due to the wrong address on the mail, and he could
not open emailed filings from his lawyer.” (Doc. # 166
at 1). He states that he would have acted differently if he
had possessed the unidentified documents earlier, but he does
not identify how he would have acted differently or what that
would have changed. (Id.). Similarly, he claims he
has “newly discovered or previously unavailable
information” that he wants to present to the court, but
he fails to identify the new information or discuss why such
information was not available prior to the Court granting the
Motion for Summary Judgment. (Id.). He argues that
the Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.,
dictates that the Court must consider “all information
and available evidence.” (Doc. # 166 at 1-2). But, that
Act does not mandate this Court reconsider its prior ruling
on summary judgment.
Court finds Bafford's arguments repetitious of his prior
motions to stay the case and extend discovery (Doc. ##108,
111, 116, 133, 149) and the motion to dismiss dated January
23, 2017 (Doc. # 135). He does not claim an intervening
change in the controlling law. Despite his claims of new
information, Bafford does not present anything new to the
Court. He fails to establish any clear, manifest injustice.
The Court declines to reconsider its Motion for Summary
alternative, Bafford seeks an extension of time of twenty
days to respond to all pending matters before the Court.
(Doc. # 166 at 2). That request is denied in that either the
request is untimely ...