Topping v. Cohen et al, No. 2:2014cv00146 - Document 97 (M.D. Fla. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 92 Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial and Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. See Opinion and Order for details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 8/13/2015. (MAB)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Topping v. Cohen et al Doc. 97 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION DALE J. TOPPING, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 2:14-cv-146-FtM-29DNF KYLE COHEN, CHARLOTTE MASON, SCOTT OWCZAREK, DIANE SPADONI, NATASHA VARNOVITSKY, JOHN DOES, and other presently unknown parties employed by or affiliated with the U.S. Department of Education, JACQUENETTE THOMPSON, TERESA GULICK, NICOLE ROVIG, and U.S. DEPARTMENT EDUCATION, other presently unknown parties employed by or affiliated with, Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial and Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. #92) filed on June 16, 2015. Defendants Scott Owczarek, Teresa Gulick, and Nicole Rovig filed a Memorandum Opposing Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Judgment (Doc. #93) on June 22, 2015, and defendants Kyle Cohen, Charlotte Mason, Diane Spadoni, Jacquenette Thompson, and Natasha Varnovitsky filed a Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Judgment (Doc. #94) on June 30, 2015. Dockets.Justia.com Rule 59(e) affords the Court substantial reconsider an order which it has entered. F.3d 1106, 1137 (11th Cir. 2000). discretion to See Mincey v. Head, 206 “The only grounds for granting a rule 59 motion are newly discovered evidence or manifest error of law or fact.” Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). A Rule 59 motion may not be used to re-litigate old matters, raise new arguments, or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment. Id. (citing Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005)). “Rule 59 is not a vehicle for rehashing arguments already rejected by the court or for refuting the court’s prior decision.” Id. Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its May 19, 2015, Opinion and Order dismissing the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice (Doc. #90) because the Court’s findings were produced in error. Specifically, plaintiff claims that the Court’s holding was based upon an errant understanding of the factual allegations. The Court has carefully reviewed plaintiff’s motion, and finds no clear error or manifest injustice in the Opinion and Order. Plaintiff is essentially trying to re-litigate issues already decided by this Court; namely, whether plaintiff set forth sufficient factual allegations to state a plausible claim for relief. This is not a basis for reconsideration. - 2 - Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial and Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. #92) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this of August, 2015. Copies: Plaintiff Counsel of Record - 3 - 13th 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.
