From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hepsen v. J.C. Christensen Associates, Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
Oct 19, 2009
Case No. 8:07-CV-1935-T-EAJ (M.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2009)

Opinion

Case No. 8:07-CV-1935-T-EAJ.

October 19, 2009


ORDER


Before the court are Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 71) and Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 72). For the reasons stated, Defendant's request that the undersigned reconsider the court's September 22, 2009 order (Dkt. 68) is DENIED.

A motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources. Wendy's Int'l, Inc. v. Nu-Cape Constr., Inc., 169 F.R.D. 680, 685 (M.D. Fla. 1996). There are three grounds justifying reconsideration of an order: (1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence, and (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice. Id. at 684-85.

In the instant motion to reconsider, Defendant does not argue that there has been an intervening change in controlling law, present previously unavailable evidence or show that reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error or manifest injustice. Defendant merely reiterates the same arguments raised at trial. Specifically, Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the underlying debt was a consumer debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Defendant also asserts that there was no evidence that Defendant incorrectly stated the amount of the debt in its demand letter. The court has already considered and rejected Defendant's arguments. Thus, the court concludes that Defendant has failed to meet the Rule 59(e) standard and the motion is denied.

Defendant also argues it is renewing its motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b) (Dkt. 71 at 1). However, Rule 50 has no application where the case is tried by a judge without a jury. Schlitt v. Florida, 749 F.2d 1482, 1482-83 (11th Cir. 1985).

Therefore, the request contained in Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 71) that the undersigned reconsider the court's September 22, 2009 order (Dkt. 68) is DENIED..

DONE and ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hepsen v. J.C. Christensen Associates, Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
Oct 19, 2009
Case No. 8:07-CV-1935-T-EAJ (M.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2009)
Case details for

Hepsen v. J.C. Christensen Associates, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:AHMET HEPSEN, Plaintiff, v. J.C. CHRISTENSEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC., et al.…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

Date published: Oct 19, 2009

Citations

Case No. 8:07-CV-1935-T-EAJ (M.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2009)

Citing Cases

Green v. Brice, Vander Linden & Wernick, P.C.

Several courts across the country have determined that "a clearly false representation of the creditor's name…

Williams v. Partners for Payment Relief Inc.

Wallace,. 683 F.3d at 327, quoting Hepsen v. J.C. Christensen and Assocs., Inc., No. 8:07-CV-1935-T-EAJ, 2009…