Turner v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-23028-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

MARK A. TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC, and AMROCK, LLC,

Defendants. _____________________________/

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff Mark A. Turner’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Quash and Set Aside “Justice Bloom[’s]” Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Enforcement of Settlement Agreement and “Magistrate Alicia Reyes Otazo” Report & Recommendation, ECF No. [135] (“Motion”). The Court has reviewed the Motion, the record in this case, and is duly advised. Plaintiff seeks an order to vacate the Court’s Order Adopting Report and Recommendation, ECF No. [121], and to reject Magistrate Judge Alicia Otazo-Reyes’s Report & Recommendation, ECF No. [110]. In support, Plaintiff contends that he requested “audio and stenographic transcripts” of the Settlement Conference in this action but that he had not received the transcripts. ECF No. [135] at 2, 3-5. In Plaintiff’s view, his inability to review the “audio and stenographic transcripts” had prejudicial effect. Id. at 2. Moreover, Plaintiff contends there was never a required “Meeting of Minds” with respect to the settlement in this action. Id. at 2-3. On this latter point, Plaintiff submits the settlement agreement was invalid. As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the Motion violates Local Rule 7.1(a), which requires a motion to “incorporate a memorandum of law citing supporting authorities[.]” S.D. Fla. Case No. 22-cv-23028-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

L.R. 7.1(a). The Motion is devoid of citation to any legal authority; such failure may be sufficient cause for the Court to deny it. Holden v. Sony Elecs., Inc., No. 05-81162-CIV, 2007 WL 9706928, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 31, 2007). In any event, the Court considered both of Plaintiff's arguments in its Order on Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. [124], and its Order Adopting Report and Recommendation, ECF No. [121], respectively, and found those arguments to be misplaced. To that extent, Plaintiff's Motion is a third motion for reconsideration that is due to be denied. See Zapata v. Folliard, No. 17-23170- CIV, 2018 WL 8582440, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2018) (denying third motion for reconsideration where motion did not indicate a change in controlling law, newly discovered evidence, or clear error). Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion, ECF No. [135], is denied. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on October 24, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Counsel of Record Mark A. Turner 1411 SE 26th Avenue Homestead, FL 33035 PRO SE