Caruso
v.
Titan List & Mailing Servs., Inc.

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDASep 11, 2018
Case No. 18-cv-62069-BLOOM/Valle (S.D. Fla. Sep. 11, 2018)

Case No. 18-cv-62069-BLOOM/Valle

09-11-2018

CORNELIUS ROBERT CARUSO, Plaintiff, v. TITAN LIST AND MAILING SERVICES, INC., JOAN PIANTADOSI and JOHN FLATHMANN, Defendants.


ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration ("Motion") of the Court's order of dismissal, ECF No. [5] ("Order"), in which the Court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction with respect to Plaintiff's claim for retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. (the "FLSA").

"[T]he courts have delineated three major grounds justifying 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." Williams v. Cruise Ships Catering & Serv. Int'l, N.V., 320 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1357-58 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (citing Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994)); see Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1369 (S.D. Fla. 2002) ("The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.") (quoting Z.K. Marine Inc. v. M/V Archigetis, 808 F. Supp. 1561, 1563 (S.D. Fla. 1992).

Upon review, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion, ECF No. [6], and VACATES the Order, ECF No. [5]. The Clerk of Court shall REOPEN this case. Plaintiff shall file new summonses for issuance, and proceed with service of process in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 11th day of September, 2018.

/s/ _________


BETH BLOOM


UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to: Counsel of Record