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 GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CORRECT, AND FOR 

PARTIAL RELIEF FROM, THE FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING IN

PART PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED OMNIBUS MOTION FOR FINAL JUDGMENT

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

LaForte’s Motion to Correct, and for Partial Relief from, the Final Judgment and Order Granting 

in Part Plaintiff’s Amended Omnibus Motion for Final Judgment [ECF No. 1444] (“Motion”) filed 

on November 18, 2022. Defendants ask the Court to (1) correct a clerical mistake in the 

Disgorgement Order [ECF No. 1432] and Final Judgment as to Defendants Joseph W. LaForte and 

Lisa McElhone [ECF No. 1433]; (2) reconsider its reliance on the SEC Expert Report as opposed 

to the Bradley Sharp report; and (3) revise its prejudgment interest calculation based on the 

corrected disgorgement amount along with providing an explanation of the methods used to 

calculate prejudgment interest. The Court conducted a status conference via Zoom 

videoconference on November 21, 2022. See [ECF No. 1446] (“Hearing”). During that Hearing, 

the Court acknowledged the clerical error in its calculations, denied Defendants’ request to 

relitigate the use of the SEC Expert Report, and explained how it calculated prejudgment interest 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1449 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2022 Page 1 of 3
Page - 2 - of 3

up through the date of the Disgorgement Order. Further, the SEC stated ore tenus that it agreed 

with the Court’s position on all three points. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Defendants’ Rule 59(e) motion to amend the Final Judgment and Rule 60(a) motion 

to correct the clerical mistake in the Disgorgement Order calculations is GRANTED. Rule 59(e) 

permits a district court to amend a judgment in order to “rectify its own mistakes in the period 

immediately following its decision.” See Harris v. Wingo, No. 2:18-CV-17-JES-MRM, 2022 WL 

562263, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 2022) (citing Banister v. Davis, 140 S. Ct. 1698, 1703 (2020)) 

(internal citations omitted). “A district court may act under Rule 60(a) only to correct mistakes or 

oversights that cause the judgment to fail to reflect what was intended at the time.” Phuc Quang 

Le v. Humphrey, 703 F. App’x 830, 835 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Vaughter v. E. Air Lines, Inc., 

817 F.2d 685, 688–91 (11th Cir. 1987)) (internal quotations omitted); see also Hale Container 

Line, Inc. v. Houston Sea Packing Co., Inc., 137 F.3d 1455, 1474 (11th Cir. 1998) (correcting 

mathematical error in a damage award pursuant to Rule 60(a)). The Court intended to deduct Cole 

and Abbonizio’s disgorgement amounts from the disgorgement amounts entered against 

McElhone and LaForte but failed to do so. The Court will therefore enter an Amended 

Disgorgement Order and Amended Final Judgment as to Lisa McElhone and Joseph W. LaForte 

to rectify the clerical error in its calculations. 

2. The Court declines to relitigate its reliance on the SEC Expert Report prepared by 

Melissa Davis as opposed to Bradley Sharp’s report. See Disgorgement Order at 15–16. Rule 

59(e) cannot be used to “relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have 

been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, Fla., 408 

F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005). Further, “[p]arties cannot file motions for reconsideration that ask 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1449 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2022 Page 2 of 3
Page - 3 - of 3

the Court to rethink what the Court . . . already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” American 

Univ. of Caribbean, N.V. v. Carital Healthcare, Inc., No. 08-20374, 2011 WL 13174780, at *1 

(S.D. Fla. Mar. 17, 2011) (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also Farrell v. Flecha, No. 

13-22457, 2013 WL 12139327, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jul. 25, 2013) (“A motion for reconsideration

cannot be used to 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)). Therefore, for the 

reasons stated in the Disgorgement Order, Defendants’ motion to reconsider and amend on this 

point is DENIED.

3. The Court will recalculate the prejudgment interest amounts for McElhone and 

LaForte up through the date of the original Disgorgement Order based on the corrected 

disgorgement calculation. This recalculated amount will be reflected in the Amended 

Disgorgement Order and Amended Final Judgment. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion on this 

point is GRANTED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 22nd day of November, 2022.

________________________________

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1449 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2022 Page 3 of 3