Kanika Ghai Declaration of Trust, Vivek Ghai, and Kanika Ghai v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida

M.D. Florida

Kanika Ghai Declaration of Trust, Vivek Ghai, and Kanika Ghai v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida

DecidedOctober 17, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-00567

StatusUnknown

This text of Kanika Ghai Declaration of Trust, Vivek Ghai, and Kanika Ghai v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida (Kanika Ghai Declaration of Trust, Vivek Ghai, and Kanika Ghai v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida) 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

Kanika Ghai Declaration of Trust, Vivek Ghai, and Kanika Ghai v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, (M.D. Fla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

KANIKA GHAI DECLARATION OF TRUST, VIKEK GHAI, and KANIKA GHAI,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No.: 2:24-cv-567-SPC-DNF

AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA,

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER In this flood insurance case under the National Flood Insurance Program (“NFIP”), the Court granted Defendant American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida’s motion for summary judgment because Plaintiffs Kanika Ghai Declaration of Trust, Vivek Ghai, and Kanika Ghai failed to file this case within the one-year statute of limitations. (Doc. 35). Plaintiffs now seek reconsideration of that Order. (Doc. 39). Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary measure that should be applied sparingly. Adams v. Beoneman, 335 F.R.D. 452, 454 (M.D. Fla. 2020). Court orders are not intended as first drafts subject to revisions at a litigant’s pleasure, so a movant must establish extraordinary circumstances supporting reconsideration. Gold Cross EMS, Inc. v. Children’s Hosp. of Ala., 108 F. Supp. 3d 1376, 1384 (S.D. Ga. 2015). “A motion for reconsideration should raise new issues, not merely readdress issues previously litigated.” PaineWebber Income Props. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 902 F. Supp. 1514, 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1995). Plaintiffs’ motion simply rehashes an argument they previously raised regarding an omitted “critical” sentence from Defendant’s denial letter. The Court already rejected this argument. (Doc. 35 at 9-10). They cannot use a motion for reconsideration merely to relitigate an issue the Court already decided. Because they present no extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 39) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on October 17, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies: All Parties of Record

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

KANIKA GHAI DECLARATION OF TRUST, VIKEK GHAI, and KANIKA GHAI,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No.: 2:24-cv-567-SPC-DNF

AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA,

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER In this flood insurance case under the National Flood Insurance Program (“NFIP”), the Court granted Defendant American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida’s motion for summary judgment because Plaintiffs Kanika Ghai Declaration of Trust, Vivek Ghai, and Kanika Ghai failed to file this case within the one-year statute of limitations. (Doc. 35). Plaintiffs now seek reconsideration of that Order. (Doc. 39). Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary measure that should be applied sparingly. Adams v. Beoneman, 335 F.R.D. 452, 454 (M.D. Fla. 2020). Court orders are not intended as first drafts subject to revisions at a litigant’s pleasure, so a movant must establish extraordinary circumstances supporting reconsideration. Gold Cross EMS, Inc. v. Children’s Hosp. of Ala., 108 F. Supp. 3d 1376, 1384 (S.D. Ga. 2015). “A motion for reconsideration should raise new issues, not merely readdress issues previously litigated.” PaineWebber Income Props. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 902 F. Supp. 1514, 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1995). Plaintiffs’ motion simply rehashes an argument they previously raised regarding an omitted “critical” sentence from Defendant’s denial letter. The Court already rejected this argument. (Doc. 35 at 9-10). They cannot use a motion for reconsideration merely to relitigate an issue the Court already decided. Because they present no extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 39) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on October 17, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies: All Parties of Record

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kanika Ghai Declaration of Trust, Vivek Ghai, and Kanika Ghai v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kanika-ghai-declaration-of-trust-vivek-ghai-and-kanika-ghai-v-american-flmd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack