Abdel-Fattah v. Belal

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedMay 26, 2023
Docket6:23-cv-00659
StatusUnknown

This text of Abdel-Fattah v. Belal (Abdel-Fattah v. Belal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Abdel-Fattah v. Belal, (M.D. Fla. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

KHALED ABDEL-FATTAH,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:23-cv-659-CEM-LHP

FATIMA BELAL and MOHAMED Z. DELHOUM,

Defendants

ORDER This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION TO REMOVE CASES 226-2016-CV-00184/637 TO US DISTRICT COURT OF MIDDLE DISTRICE OF FLORIDA FROM HILLSBOROUGH SOUTH SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (Doc. No. 12) FILED: May 17, 2023

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.1

1 The Court does not require a response from Defendants to resolve the motion. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, previously filed a “Motion to Remove Cases 226- 2016-CV-00184/637 to US District Court of Middle Districe of Florida from Hillsborough South Superior Court of New Hampshire.” Doc. No. 6. Upon

review, the Court denied that motion for failure to comply with the Local Rules and for failure to demonstrate that the relief sought (removal of cases from state court in New Hampshire to this Court to be combined with this matter) was proper. Doc. No. 10. Now, Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of that Order. Doc. No. 12.

Upon review, the motion will be denied. First, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g). Second, “[m]otions for reconsideration are permitted when there is (1) an intervening change in

controlling law; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” Stallworth v. Omninet Village, L.P., No. 6:16-cv-546-Orl- 31DAB, 2016 WL 10100424, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2016) (citing Tristar Lodging, Inc. v. Arch Speciality Ins. Co., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1286, 1301 (M.D. Fla. 2006), aff’d, 215

F. App’x 879 (11th Cir. 2007))). Plaintiff’s Motion fails to satisfy any of these standards. See Doc. No. 12. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. No. 12) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 26, 2023.

ayn □□□□ LESLIE AN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

-3-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Tristar Lodging, Inc. v. Arch Specialty Insurance
215 F. App'x 879 (Eleventh Circuit, 2007)
Tristar Lodging, Inc. v. Arch Speciality Insurance
434 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (M.D. Florida, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Abdel-Fattah v. Belal, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abdel-fattah-v-belal-flmd-2023.