F & W Lawn Care and Landscaping, Inc. v. Cozart

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

F & W LAWN CARE AND LANDSCAPING, INC., an Illinois corporation,

Plaintiff and Counter Defendant,

v. Case No: 2:23-cv-549-JES-KCD

ROBERT A. COZART,

Defendant and Counter Claimant.

OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Robert A. Cozart’s Rule 59(e) Motion to Reconsider (Doc. #89.) Also before the Court is Defendant’s Response in Opposition (Doc. #92) to Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. #78.) The Eleventh Circuit recently clarified that “Rules 59(e) and 60(b) only come into play after a final, appealable judgment is entered.” Hornady v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, 118 F.4th 1367, 1379 (11th Cir. 2024) (citing Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307, 1315 (11th Cir. 2000) (“an interlocutory order . . . is not subject to . . . Rule 59”); Region 8 Forest Serv. Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 806 n.5 (11th Cir. 1993) (“A motion for reconsideration made after final judgment falls within the ambit of either Rule 59(e) . . . or Rule 60(b)”)). See also Hertz Corp. v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 16 F.3d 1126, 1132 (11th Cir. 1994) (“Rule 59(e) remain[s] dormant . . . until a final judgment has been entered.”); id. at 1133 (“Rule 59(e) . . . can

be activated only by entry of [final] judgment”). The Court’s Opinion and Order (Doc. #82) granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. #75), and dismissing Defendant’s Amended Counterclaim (Doc. #65) was an interlocutory order. See (Doc. #82, p. 12) (directing the clerk to “withhold entry of judgment . . . pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)”) (em- phasis removed). Thus, Rule 59(e) “do[es] not apply.” Hornady, 118 F.4th at 1379. Therefore, Defendant’s Rule 59(e) Motion to Reconsider (Doc. #89) is DENIED. On a separate note, Defendant has filed a Response in Oppos- ition (Doc. #92) to Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. #78). However, the Response appears to be an unedited version in which

comments, some of which discuss the Response’s strengths and weak- nesses, have not been removed. The Court therefore DIRECTS the Clerk to STRIKE Defendant’s Response. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Defendant Robert A. Cozart’s Rule 59(e) Motion to Reconsider (Doc. #89) is DENIED. 2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to STRIKE Defendant’s Response in Oppo- sition (Doc. #92) from the Court’s Docket. 3. Defendant may file another Response in Opposition to Plain- tiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. #78} no later than 9:00a.m. EST on Friday, June 13, 2025. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 11th day of June 2025.

—_— (2. _ f AA) DH JGHH E. STEELE SHNIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies: Parties of record

=- 3 =-