UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case no. 22-cv-62076-WPD

GREGORY TONY, in his official

capacity as Sheriff of Broward County, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Defendant. 

_____________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

AND MOTION TO CERTIFY INTOLOCUTORY APPEAL

 THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Evanston Insurance Company 

(“Evanston” or Defendant”)’s Motion for Reconsideration or in the Alternative for Certification 

of Interlocutory Appeal, filed herein on June 29, 2023. [DE 44]. The Court has carefully 

considered the Motion [DE 44], Plaintiff Gregory Tony, in his official capacity as Sheriff of 

Broward County (“BSO” or “Plaintiff”)’s Response [DE 46], Defendant’s Reply [DE 47], and is 

otherwise fully advised in the premises. 

I. DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Reconsideration 

“The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact 

or to present newly discovered evidence.” Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 181 F. 

Supp. 2d 1366, 1369 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (internal citations omitted). Three major grounds justify 

reconsideration: “(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new 

evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. (citing Office 

Case 0:22-cv-62076-WPD Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2023 Page 1 of 4
Togolais Des Phosphates v. Mulberry Phosphates, Inc., 62 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 1331 (M.D. Fla. 

1999); Sussman v. Salem Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla 1994)). For a 

court to reconsider its prior judgment, the moving party must present facts or law of a “strongly 

convincing nature” that would induce a court to reverse its prior decision. Cover v. Wal-Mart 

Stores, Inc., 148 F.R.D. 294, 295 (M.D. Fla. 1993) (citing Sussman, 153 F.R.D. at 694). A 

motion under Rule 60(b) must be shaped to the specific grounds for modification or reversal 

enumerated in the Rule, and it may not be a mere general plea for relief. Wendy’s Int’l, Inc. v. 

Nu-Cape Const., Inc., 163 F.R.D. 680, 687 (M.D. Fla. 1996); United States v. Deutsch, 981 F.2d 

299, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). A motion for reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy to be 

employed sparingly.” Burger King Corp., 181 F. Supp. 2d at 1370 (citing Mannings v. Sch. Bd. 

of Hillsborough Cnty., 149 F.R.D. 235, 235 (M.D. Fla. 1993)). 

Here, Defendant asks the Court to reconsider its May 24, 2023 Order on Defendant 

Evanston’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike (the “Order”) [DE 38]. There has been no 

intervening change in controlling law and there is no new evidence available. Rather, 

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration merely rehashes arguments it previously made -- or 

which it could have made -- in its motion to dismiss briefing, at the May 15, 2023 one-hour 

hearing on Evanston’s motion, or following the hearing. The Court rejected these arguments for 

the reasons explained in the Order. Defendant’s disagreement with this Court’s analysis and 

conclusions does not justify reconsideration of Defendant’s arguments now. Defendant has 

failed to show an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the 

need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Defendant’s request for the 

extraordinary remedy of reconsideration shall be denied. 

Case 0:22-cv-62076-WPD Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2023 Page 2 of 4
Furthermore, the Court reminds Defendant Evanston that the disposition of the ruling at 

issue in the May 24, 2023 Order was the denial of Evanston’s motion to dismiss for failure to 

state a claim. The Court has not yet determined the disposition of any hypothetical final 

judgment that might be entered at some stage in this case. Any factual and legal issues arising 

from Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses (which was filed after the May 24, 2023 

Order) have not yet been litigated by the parties or addressed by the Court. The parties are

certainly entitled to develop the factual record in support of their positions. 

B. Motion for Interlocutory Appeal

Alternatively, Defendant Evanston seeks certification of an immediate interlocutory 

appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 

A district court judge has the discretion to approve an order for interlocutory appeal that 

involves “a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of 

opinion and that an immediate appeal from an order may materially advance the ultimate 

termination of litigation.” § 1292(b). Only an “exceptional” case will be approved for an 

interlocutory appeal. McFarlin v. Conseco Servs., 381 F.3d 1251, 1256 (11th Cir. 2004). The 

Court finds that such circumstances do not exist in this case. Moreover, an interlocutory appeal 

of the Order is more likely to delay and prolong the instant litigation than to materially advance 

the termination of the litigation.1

 

1 This case is set for trial to commence on January 8, 2024, with the discovery cutoff in 

September 2023 and the substantive pretrial motions deadline in October 2023. See [DE 43]. 

Accordingly, in the event that this case does not settle and it is instead disposed of by a motion 

for judgment on the pleadings, a motion for summary judgment, or a trial, a final judgment that 

is appealable as a matter of right would be entered in less than six months from now. 

Case 0:22-cv-62076-WPD Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2023 Page 3 of 4
II. CONCLUSION

Accordingly it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for 

Reconsideration or in the Alternative for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal [DE 44] is hereby 

DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida this 

20th day of July, 2023. 

 

Copies provided to: 

Counsel of record 

Case 0:22-cv-62076-WPD Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2023 Page 4 of 4