Malhotra v. Kumar

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

JEEVAN MALHOTRA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:24-cv-945-SPC-NPM

AJIT KUMAR, AJAY KUMAR, RAJ KUMAR, RENU KUMAR, and VIJAY KUMAR,

Defendants. /

OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Jeevan Malhotra’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 64). The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, including dismissal with prejudice of his claims for promissory estoppel and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Doc. 63). Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider dismissal with prejudice of these two claims. 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). After review of Plaintiff’s motion and applicable law, the Court finds his motion to be meritless. Plaintiff presents no extraordinary circumstances to

warrant reconsideration. His attempts to clarify his claims are unmoving, and none of the cases he cites compel a different result. Plaintiff cannot use a motion for reconsideration merely to relitigate an issue the Court already decided. What’s more, his motion failed to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g).1

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 64) is denied. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is due on or before May 19, 2025. (Doc. 63). Given Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and his pro se status, the Court will permit Plaintiff until May 23, 2025, to file

his third amended complaint. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 64) is DENIED.

1 In its prior Order, the Court instructed Plaintiff that “[a]ny future filings must comply with the Middle District of Florida’s Local Rules.” (Doc. 63 at 1 n.1). 2. On or before May 23, 2025, Plaintiff must file a Third Amended Complaint. A failure to do so will result in this case’s dismissal without further notice. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this May 15, 2025.

, tite WObLatrat he 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record