Saito v. Patel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION KOICHI SAITO and LYNNE’A SAITO, Plaintiffs, v. Case No.: 2:24-cv-65-JES-KCD PRATIK PATEL, DECUBAS & LEWIS, PETER LANNING, EX LEGAL PLLC, COLLIER COUNTY ET AL, STATE OF FLORIDA, and MARC JOSEPH, Defendants. / ORDER Plaintiffs Koichi and Lynnea Saito previously moved to strike the notices of appearance filed by attorneys Steve Tran and Steven Force “unless [they] can show [] legal and lawful authority to represent” their clients. (Docs. 49, 50 at 1.) That request was denied (Doc. 51), and Plaintiffs now ask the Court to reconsider its ruling (Doc. 58).

Reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly. “Only a change in the law, or the facts upon which a decision is based, will justify a reconsideration of a previous order.” Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994).

Plaintiffs do not claim an intervening change in controlling law or the underlying facts. Nor have Plaintiffs shown any legal error to induce the Court to reverse its decision. Plaintiffs instead seek to re-litigate the merits of their motions to strike. But “a motion for reconsideration does not provide an opportunity to simply reargue an issue the Court has once determined.” Am. Ass'n of People With Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1840 (M.D. Fla. 2003).

Accordingly, itis ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs’ Objection and Demand for Reconsideration (Doc. 58) is DENIED.

ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on May 138, 2024.

i ae yor Lote Ladle * Kale C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge Copies: All Parties of Record