Berlinger et al v. Wells Fargo, N.A. as Successor to Wachovia Bank, N.A., No. 2:2011cv00459 - Document 519 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 514 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 12/21/2015. (RKR)

Download PDF
Berlinger et al v. Wells Fargo, N.A. as Successor to Wachovia Bank, N.A. Doc. 519 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION STACEY SUE BERLINGER, as Beneficiaries to the Rosa B. Schweiker Trust and all of its related trusts aka Stacey Berlinger O’Connor, BRIAN BRUCE BERLINGER, and HEATHER ANNE BERLINGER, as Beneficiaries to the Rosa B. Schweiker Trust and all of its related trusts, Plaintiffs, v. Case No: 2:11-cv-459-FtM-29CM WELLS FARGO, N.A. AS SUCCESSOR TO WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., as Corporate Trustee to the Rosa B. Schweiker Trust, and all of its related trusts, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff BRUCE D. BERLINGER and SUE CASSELBERRY, Third Party Defendants. ____________________________ OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #514) filed on December 16, 2015. Reconsideration of a court’s previous order is an extraordinary remedy and, thus, is a power which should be used sparingly. American Ass’n of People with Disabilities v. Hood, Dockets.Justia.com 278 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1339 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (citing Taylor Woodrow Constr. Corp. v. Sarasota/Manatee Airport Auth., 814 F. Supp. 1072, 1072-73 (M.D. Fla. 1993)). raise new issues, previously.” not “A motion for reconsideration should merely readdress issues litigated PaineWebber Income Props. Three Ltd. P'ship v. Mobil Oil Corp., 902 F. Supp. 1514, 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1995). Courts have “delineated three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; [and] (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). Unless the movant’s arguments fall into one of these categories, the motion must be denied. The motion to reconsider must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to demonstrate to the court the reason to reverse its prior decision. Taylor Woodrow, 814 F. Supp. at 1073; PaineWebber, 902 F. Supp. at 1521. “When issues have been carefully considered and decisions rendered, the only reason which should commend reconsideration of that decision is a change in the factual or legal underpinning upon which the decision was based.” Taylor Woodrow, 814 F. Supp. at 1072–73. A motion for reconsideration does not provide an opportunity to simply reargue-or argue for the first time-an issue the Court has once determined. first drafts, subject Court opinions “are not intended as mere to revision - 2 - 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 burden is upon the movant to establish the extraordinary circumstances supporting reconsideration.” Mannings v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough Cnty., 149 F.R.D. 235, 235 (M.D. Fla. 1993). Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider its December 8, 2015 Opinion and Order. (Doc. #514.) The Court has carefully reviewed plaintiffs’ motion and finds no change in controlling law, no new evidence, and no clear error or manifest injustice in the Opinion and Order. Plaintiffs are essentially trying to re-litigate issues already decided by this Court. The Court finds no basis for reconsideration. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #514) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this of December, 2015. Copies: Counsel of Record - 3 - 21st day

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.