Sideratos v. Pinellas County Sheriff's Office

M.D. Florida

Sideratos v. Pinellas County Sheriff's Office

DecidedJuly 25, 2025

Docket8:24-cv-02986

StatusUnknown

This text of Sideratos v. Pinellas County Sheriff's Office (Sideratos v. Pinellas County Sheriff's Office) 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

Sideratos v. Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, (M.D. Fla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

VASILIS SIDERATOS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:24-cv-2986-SDM-AAS

DEPUTY AUSTIN RILL, et al.,

Defendant. ______________________________/

ORDER Plaintiff Vasilis Sideratos requests the court reconsider its July 2, 2025 order. (Doc. 42). District courts have “inherent authority to revise interlocutory orders before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case.” Hollander v. Wolf, No. 09-80587-CIV, 2009 WL 10667896, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2009). These limited circumstances prompt reconsideration of a court order: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) new evidence which has become available; or (3) a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. McGuire v. Ryland Grp., Inc., 497 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 1358 (M.D. Fla. 2007); True v. Comm’r of the I.R.S., 108 F. Supp. 2d 1361, 1365, (M.D. Fla. 2000). The party moving for reconsideration must present “facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” McGuire, 497 F. Supp. 2d at 1358 (internal quotations omitted). Mr. Sideratos fails to identify a change in controlling law, new evidence, or clear error by the court. Consequently, Mr. Sideratos fails to meet the burden necessary to warrant reconsideration. See Armstrong v. Sec’y, Dep't of Corr., No. 8:18-CV-2846-T-17AAS, 2019 WL 11556767, *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 10, 2019) (“A motion to reconsider is an extraordinary remedy and ‘is not a vehicle for rehashing arguments the Court has already rejected or for attempting to refute the basis for the Court's earlier decision[.]”’) (citations omitted). Mr. Sideratos subsequently filed a motion for the court to stay a ruling pending a review of the transcript from the May 13, 2025 hearing. (Doc. 56). It is unnecessary to review the hearing transcript before ruling on the motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, Mr. Sideratos’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 47) and motion to stay ruling (Doc. 56) are DENIED. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on July 25, 2025. Aranda. Are he Sarma. AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE United States Magistrate Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

VASILIS SIDERATOS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:24-cv-2986-SDM-AAS

DEPUTY AUSTIN RILL, et al.,

Defendant. ______________________________/

ORDER Plaintiff Vasilis Sideratos requests the court reconsider its July 2, 2025 order. (Doc. 42). District courts have “inherent authority to revise interlocutory orders before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case.” Hollander v. Wolf, No. 09-80587-CIV, 2009 WL 10667896, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2009). These limited circumstances prompt reconsideration of a court order: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) new evidence which has become available; or (3) a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. McGuire v. Ryland Grp., Inc., 497 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 1358 (M.D. Fla. 2007); True v. Comm’r of the I.R.S., 108 F. Supp. 2d 1361, 1365, (M.D. Fla. 2000). The party moving for reconsideration must present “facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” McGuire, 497 F. Supp. 2d at 1358 (internal quotations omitted). Mr. Sideratos fails to identify a change in controlling law, new evidence, or clear error by the court. Consequently, Mr. Sideratos fails to meet the burden necessary to warrant reconsideration. See Armstrong v. Sec’y, Dep't of Corr., No. 8:18-CV-2846-T-17AAS, 2019 WL 11556767, *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 10, 2019) (“A motion to reconsider is an extraordinary remedy and ‘is not a vehicle for rehashing arguments the Court has already rejected or for attempting to refute the basis for the Court's earlier decision[.]”’) (citations omitted). Mr. Sideratos subsequently filed a motion for the court to stay a ruling pending a review of the transcript from the May 13, 2025 hearing. (Doc. 56). It is unnecessary to review the hearing transcript before ruling on the motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, Mr. Sideratos’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 47) and motion to stay ruling (Doc. 56) are DENIED. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on July 25, 2025. Aranda. Are he Sarma. AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sideratos v. Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sideratos-v-pinellas-county-sheriffs-office-flmd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack