United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
L. YVONNE BROWN, Plaintiff,
FLORIDA GULF COAST UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, KEN KAVANAGH, KARL SMESKO, RODERICK ROLLE, KELLY BROCK and JESSICA HOMER, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER 
POLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
it is now
Plaintiff's Motion to Declare Order of Dismissal Void
(Doc. 60) DENIED.
Defendants' request for an order to show cause (Doc.
61) is DENIED.