UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-61842-CIV-SINGHAL

DONALD J. TRUMP,

Plaintiff,

v.

CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff Donald J. Trump’s (“Trump”) Motion 

for Reconsideration and/or Rehearing of Court’s Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss. (DE [32]). The motion is fully briefed and ripe for review. 

“Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly.” Holland

v. Florida, 2007 WL 9705926, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 26, 2007) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). “The only grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration ‘are 

newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.’” United States v. Dean, 838 

Fed. Appx. 470, 471-72 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 

(11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam)). “[C]lear error or manifest injustice occurs where the Court 

‘has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial 

issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but 

of apprehension.” Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Boat Rental Miami, Inc., 2020 WL 264674, at 

*6 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2020) (quotations omitted).1

1 For example, assume there is a game with no ties, only winners and losers. Three upper echelon teams 

play the game against a variety of opponents. One team plays an entire season and only wins. Two other 

teams play an entire season and lose one game each. It is beyond dispute that the undefeated team has 

done everything it was asked to do—it has never failed. The teams that have lost have not succeeded in 

doing what they were asked to do. To reward the losing teams over the winning team is a manifest error.

Case 0:22-cv-61842-AHS Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

A motion for reconsideration should raise new issues, not merely address issues 

litigated previously. Socialist Workers Party v. Leahy, 957 F. Supp. 1262, 1263 (S.D. Fla. 

1997). “A party’s disagreement with the court’s decision, absent a showing of manifest 

error, is not sufficient to demonstrate entitlement to relief.” Dean, 838 Fed. Appx. at 472 

(citing Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344 (11th Cir. 2010)).

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is well-written and well-reasoned but does 

not raise issues of manifest error. Nor has Plaintiff set forth reasonable grounds for 

amending his complaint when Plaintiff never moved to amend prior to dismissal. Plaintiff 

seeks the proverbial “second bite of the apple” and this the Court cannot grant. “When 

a litigant simply thinks a district court’s ruling is wrong, the proper remedy is to appeal the 

ruling, not to seek reconsideration.” Nuwer v. FCA US LLC, 2023 WL 4370737, at *1 (S.D. 

Fla. Apr. 5, 2023). Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and/or 

Rehearing of Court’s Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (DE [32]) is DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 5th day of 

December 2023.

Copies furnished counsel via CM/ECF

Case 0:22-cv-61842-AHS Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 2 of 2