UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CV-81205-RAR

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v. 

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 

GROUP, INC. d/b/a PAR FUNDING, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS JOSEPH LAFORTE 

AND LISA MCELHONE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants Joseph LaForte and Lisa 

McElhone’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Orders Granting the 

Receiver’s Motion to Compel Defendants Joseph LaForte and Lisa McElhone to Vacate and 

Surrender the Haverford Home [ECF No. 1557] (“Motion for Reconsideration”). The Court 

having reviewed the Motion for Reconsideration, the Receiver’s Response [ECF No. 1561], the 

record, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 1557] is DENIED. 

2. “Parties cannot file motions for reconsideration that ask the Court to rethink what 

the Court already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” Am. Univ. of Caribbean, N.V. v. Carital 

Healthcare, Inc., No. 08-20374, 2011 WL 13174780, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 17, 2011) (internal 

quotation marks omitted) (alterations accepted); see also Farrell v. Flecha, No. 13-22457, 2013 

WL 12139327, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 25, 2013) (“A motion for reconsideration cannot be used to 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1563 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2023 Page 1 of 3
Page - 2 - of 3

re-litigate old matters or present evidence that was available prior to the entry of judgment.” (citing 

Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007)).

3. Defendants failed to file their Motion for Reconsideration within a reasonable time 

frame under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 by waiting 87 days before filing. In denying the instant Motion, 

the Court has considered “whether the movant had a good reason for the delay” and determined 

that there was none. See Dominguez v. Circles K Stores, Inc., No. 11-23196, 2013 WL 4773629, 

at *4 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 4, 2013); see also In re Worldwide Web Sys., Inc., 328 F.3d 1291, 1297–98 

(11th Cir. 2003) (denying motion to vacate where the movant waited nearly two months to seek 

relief and offered no good reason for the delay). 

4. Indeed, there have been no changed circumstances, newly discovered facts, or 

intervening changes in the law to justify the delay or the Court’s reconsideration of its prior Order. 

To the contrary, Defendants waited until the eve of eviction to file their Motion for Reconsideration 

in a transparent attempt to extend their tenancy in a Receivership property without paying the rent 

and expenses they owe to the Receiver.

5. Accordingly, Defendants are hereby EVICTED from 568 Ferndale Lane, 

Haverford PA 19041 (“Haverford Home”) for breaching their obligations as holdover tenants.

6. The Receiver is GRANTED exclusive possession of the Haverford Home at 12:00 

p.m. on Friday, May 5, 2023.

7. Pursuant to Paragraph 22 of the Amended Order Appointing Receiver [ECF No. 

141], if Defendants have not vacated and turned over all keys and codes to the Haverford Home 

to the Receiver or his agents by 12:00 p.m. on May 5, 2023, the U.S. Marshals Service in the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania is hereby ORDERED to assist the Receiver in carrying out his 

duties to take possession, custody, and control of the Haverford Home.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1563 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2023 Page 2 of 3
Page - 3 - of 3

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 2nd day of May, 2023.

_________________________________

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1563 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2023 Page 3 of 3