UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

Case No. 3:19md2885

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

Canup, Case No. 8:20-cv-14021

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Hope T. Cannon

ORDER

Plaintiff Brandon Canup seeks reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 54(b) of this Court’s Order dismissing his hearing loss-related claims. ECF 

No. 36. Defendants have responded in opposition. ECF Nos. 45 & 46. For the reasons 

below, the Court denies Canup’s Motion. 

I. Background

Three Complaints have been filed in the above-captioned action: an initial 

Short-Form Complaint (“SFC”) filed in June 2020; a second SFC filed in May 2022; 

and a third Long-Form Complaint (“LFC”) filed in May 2024. See ECF Nos. 1, 4, 17. 

Previous counsel for Canup filled out the two SFCs using the standard template for 

claims in this multidistrict litigation (“MDL”); in the SFCs, plaintiffs would check 

boxes for what injuries they were asserting against Defendants. See, e.g., ECF No. 1

at 3. Neither of Canup’s SFCs included a check in the box for hearing loss claims. See

id.; ECF No. 4 at 3. Once Canup opted out of participating in the settlement program 

Case 8:20-cv-14021-MCR-HTC Document 52 Filed 09/14/24 Page 1 of 8
Page 2 of 8

Case No. 8:20-cv-14021

in the broader MDL and retained new counsel, about two years after filing his second 

SFC, the Court ordered that he (and another litigating plaintiff) file a case-specific LFC

on April 17, 2024. That Order (hereinafter “LFC Order”) expressly cautioned Canup 

that he could not use the amendment as an opportunity to add new causes of action or 

allegations against Defendants. ECF No. 15 at 2. Notwithstanding this admonition, 

Canup’s LFC included new causes of action and allegations, including for hearing loss 

injuries. Defendants subsequently moved to dismiss the newly added hearing loss 

claims, among others. ECF No. 24. This Court entered an Order granting Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss Canup’s hearing loss-related claims on July 18, 2024. ECF No. 31. 

Canup filed the instant motion for reconsideration on August 15, 2024. ECF No. 36. 

Motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders under Rule 54(b) are 

generally evaluated under the same standards as Rules 59(b) and 60(b), the latter of 

which provides for relief from judgment for various reasons, including “mistake, 

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1); Grasso v. 

Electrolux Home Prod., Inc., No. 15-cv-20774, 2016 WL 2625746, at *1 (S.D. Fla. 

Mar. 24, 2016) (citing Region 8 Forest Serv. v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 805–06 (11th 

Cir. 1993)); Berisha v. Stan, Inc., 461 F. Supp. 3d 1257, 1259 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (“[T]he 

factors provided in Rule 60(b) may be applied to a Rule 54(b) motion to reconsider.”). 

There are three primary grounds for reconsideration of an order: “(1) an intervening 

change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to 

Case 8:20-cv-14021-MCR-HTC Document 52 Filed 09/14/24 Page 2 of 8
Page 3 of 8

Case No. 8:20-cv-14021

correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Fenello v. Bank of Am., NA, 577 F. 

App’x 899, 903 n.7 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Delaware Valley Floral Grp., Inc. v. 

Shaw Rose Nets, LLC, 597 F.3d 1374, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). “A motion for 

reconsideration is not a tool for relitigating what a court has already decided.” Roig v. 

United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 20-60811-CIV, 2022 WL 3581354, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 

17, 2022) (citation omitted), aff’d sub nom. Est. of Roig by & through Olivera v. United 

Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 22-13043, 2023 WL 5321473 (11th Cir. Aug. 18, 2023). Rather, 

reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy.” Dorsch v. Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., No. 

8:11-CV-441-T-17MAP, 2013 WL 12161854, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2013) (citation 

omitted). “[T]he moving party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing 

nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” Burger King Corp. v. Ashland 

Equities, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1369 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (citation omitted).

Canup seeks reconsideration based on 1) new evidence, and 2) mistake and 

inadvertence. ECF No. 36 at 6–7. He also asserts that he “should be allowed to amend 

his Complaint, including by adding any hearing loss-related allegations or causes of 

action.” Id. at 3. With regard to his evidentiary argument, Canup contends that he has 

“acquired new evidence since filing his last short form complaint”—in particular, he 

has “had another hearing examination” and “produced an expert report on his hearing 

loss-related injuries and tinnitus.” Id. at 6–7. Based on that “new” information, 

“Plaintiff took the first opportunity to add this to his pleadings to avoid any delay.” Id.

Case 8:20-cv-14021-MCR-HTC Document 52 Filed 09/14/24 Page 3 of 8
Page 4 of 8

Case No. 8:20-cv-14021

at 8. Second, Canup claims mistake and inadvertence by his prior attorneys, and that

he does not understand the decisions by those attorneys to omit his hearing loss claims. 

Id. at 7. Further, Canup states that present counsel misunderstood1 the directive in the 

Court’s April 2024 LFC Order not to add new allegations or claims to his LFC because 

counsel did not consider the hearing loss claims to be “new” after they were disclosed

to Defendants on the Plaintiff Fact Sheet (“PFS”) in February 2024. Id. at 7–8. 

Counsel represents he also did not understand the basis of the Court barring new claims 

or allegations in the LFC. Id. at 8. Finally, Canup argues that there will be no prejudice 

to Defendants if Plaintiff’s amendment is allowed, as the case is not close to trial, and 

there is time for additional discovery on new causes of action. Id. at 9.

Defendants oppose, arguing that the motion for reconsideration should be 

rejected because Canup’s arguments are not eligible for reconsideration and, even if 

they were, he has not met his burden of showing cause for the remedy of 

reconsideration. ECF No. 45 at 1, 9. Additionally, to the extent Canup is moving for 

leave to amend his complaint, Defendants argue his request should be denied for failure 

to “properly raise or brief the issue,” or “to establish on the merits that he is entitled to 

leave to amend his complaint.” Id. at 17–18.

1 The Motion refers to “Plaintiff” misconstruing the Court’s Order, but the Court assumes that 

counsel for Plaintiff interpreted the Order, not Canup himself. See ECF No. 36 at 7–9.

Case 8:20-cv-14021-MCR-HTC Document 52 Filed 09/14/24 Page 4 of 8
Page 5 of 8

Case No. 8:20-cv-14021

II. Discussion

a. Canup has not established any basis for reconsideration

Neither of the bases for reconsideration offered by Canup is sufficient to 

persuade this Court to reconsider its Order dismissing his hearing loss-related claims 

and allegations. First, Canup asserts that the new evidence warranting reconsideration 

is his “hearing examination” and “expert report on his hearing loss-related injuries and 

tinnitus.” ECF No. 36 at 6–7. But “[w]hen newly discovered evidence is the basis for 

reconsideration of an interlocutory ruling, the proponent must demonstrate that the 

evidence was neither in its possession nor available on the exercise of due diligence 

before the interlocutory ruling.” In re 3M Combat Arms Earplug Prod. Liab. Litig., 

No. 3:19MD2885, 2021 WL 6327373, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 20, 2021) (emphasis 

added); see also Waddell v. Hendry Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 329 F.3d 1300, 1309 (11th Cir. 

2003) (“[E]vidence must be newly discovered. . . .”). There can be no dispute that the 

evidence Canup argues is “new” was discovered before the Court’s interlocutory order 

in July 2024. See ECF No. 31. As Defendants point out, that evidence was acquired

in March 2024. ECF No. 45 at 10–11. Indeed, the Court acknowledged that such 

evidence existed—and took it into account—in advance of its July Order. See ECF 

No. 31 at 5 (noting “disclosures required under Case Management Order 57”—like 

expert reports and testing to support claims—included ‘“hearing loss allegations and 

Case 8:20-cv-14021-MCR-HTC Document 52 Filed 09/14/24 Page 5 of 8
Page 6 of 8

Case No. 8:20-cv-14021

damages”’ (citation omitted)). Thus, Canup does not show “new” evidence on which 

the Court may reconsider its Order.

Canup also provides two arguments for reconsideration due to mistake or 

inadvertence: first, he is unsure why his prior counsel omitted claims for hearing loss 

in his first two SFCs. ECF No. 36 at 7. Second, he says that current counsel 

misunderstood the Court’s Order requiring that Canup file a LFC without new 

allegations or claims, because counsel did not consider them “new” after being 

disclosed in the PFS in February 2024. See id. at 7–8; ECF No. 46-1 at 32. Further, 

counsel does not understand the basis for the Court to bar new claims or allegations 

(or, accordingly, the basis of Defendants’ motion to dismiss). ECF No. 36 at 8–9.

Neither of these “mistakes” from prior or current counsel warrant 

reconsideration. Regarding prior counsel’s purported mistakes, as Defendants 

highlight, “it has long been understood that a party who ‘voluntarily chose’ an attorney 

to represent [him] cannot later choose to ‘avoid the consequences of the acts or 

omissions of this freely selected agent.’” Dos Santos v. United States Att’y Gen., 982 

F.3d 1315, 1319 (11th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted); see also ECF No. 45 at 15; 

McCurry ex rel. Turner v. Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc., 298 F.3d 586, 594 (6th 

Cir. 2002) (In evaluating a purported mistake under Rule 60(b), “it [does not] matter 

that any mistake or strategic choice might have been made by [plaintiffs’] former 

counsel, rather than by the [plaintiffs] themselves, or that they might have been less 

Case 8:20-cv-14021-MCR-HTC Document 52 Filed 09/14/24 Page 6 of 8
Page 7 of 8

Case No. 8:20-cv-14021

than fully informed, knowledgeable and active participants in the decisionmaking 

process.”). Moreover, as presented to the Court, it is unclear that former counsel made 

a mistake, rather than a strategic choice, in not selecting the boxes for hearing loss 

injuries on the SFCs. Accordingly, the Court declines to reconsider on the basis of

former counsel’s purported mistake. 

Likewise, Canup’s argument regarding current counsel’s misunderstanding of 

the LFC Order does not compel the Court to reconsider its decision dismissing Canup’s 

hearing loss claims. Just because counsel did not consider the hearing loss claims to 

be “new” following the PFS a few months prior does not make that so. Likewise, 

counsel’s confusion about the basis for the Court’s LFC Order, and the interplay 

between that Order and Rule 15, does not change the meaning of Court’s original 

directive not to add new allegations or claims. Cf. Bent v. Wilson, No. 6:21-CV-75-

WWB-EJK, 2022 WL 16552665, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2022) (“[T]he Court rejects 

any argument that Plaintiff’s ‘misreading’ of an unambiguous order would be 

excusable neglect.”). Were the Court to change the plain meaning of its own Order 

based on counsel’s interpretation, it would allow “relitigati[on] [of] what [the] court 

has already decided.” Roig, 2022 WL 3581354, at *4.

b. The Court declines to construe Canup’s Motion as one to amend

Complaint

While Canup styles his motion as one for reconsideration alone, he argues that 

he “should be allowed to amend his Complaint, including by adding any hearing lossCase 8:20-cv-14021-MCR-HTC Document 52 Filed 09/14/24 Page 7 of 8
Page 8 of 8

Case No. 8:20-cv-14021

related allegations or causes of action” in his Motion. ECF No. 36 at 3. The Court 

declines to construe this request as an independent motion for leave to amend under 

any applicable rule. The Court finds that Canup’s request is not specific enough to 

address without separate briefing and, as the Local Rules of this Court require, a copy 

of the proposed Complaint that includes the desired amendments. Notably, it is unclear 

to the Court if Canup seeks to amend his Complaint to add more than hearing lossrelated allegations or claims based on the request as brought in the current Motion. 

See, e.g., id. (requesting to amend Complaint “including by adding any hearing lossrelated allegations” (emphasis added)).

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, Canup’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 36, is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED, on this 14th day of September, 2024.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 8:20-cv-14021-MCR-HTC Document 52 Filed 09/14/24 Page 8 of 8