AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges

AHMET HEPSEN, Plaintiff, v. J.C. CHRISTENSEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Defendants.

ORDER

ELIZABETH JENKINS, Magistrate Judge

Before the court are Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 71) and Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 72). For the reasons stated, Defendant's request that the undersigned reconsider the court's September 22, 2009 order (Dkt. 68) is DENIED.

A motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources. Wendy's Int'l, Inc. v. Nu-Cape Constr., Inc., 169 F.R.D. 680, 685 (M.D. Fla. 1996). There are three grounds justifying reconsideration of an order: (1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence, and (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice. Id. at 684-85.

In the instant motion to reconsider, Defendant does not argue that there has been an intervening change in controlling law, present previously unavailable evidence or show that reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error or manifest injustice. Defendant merely reiterates the same arguments raised at trial. Specifically, Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the underlying debt was a consumer debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Defendant also asserts that there was no evidence that Defendant incorrectly stated the amount of the debt in its demand letter. The court has already considered and rejected Defendant's arguments. Thus, the court concludes that Defendant has failed to meet the Rule 59(e) standard and the motion is denied.

Defendant also argues it is renewing its motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b) (Dkt. 71 at 1). However, Rule 50 has no application where the case is tried by a judge without a jury. Schlitt v. Florida, 749 F.2d 1482, 1482-83 (11th Cir. 1985).

Therefore, the request contained in Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 71) that the undersigned reconsider the court's September 22, 2009 order (Dkt. 68) is DENIED..

DONE and ORDERED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HEPSEN v. J.C. CHRISTENSEN ASSOCIATES, INC (M.D.Fla. 10-19-2009)
(Oct 19, 2009)