Preview
Filing # 106608783 E-Filed 04/23/2020 11:25:14 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.
CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION AN
CASE NO. 50-2017-CA-012343-XXXX-MB
TREVOR RICHARDS,
NOVLAT RICHARDS,
Plaintiff/Petitioners
vs.
MATTHEW CIVETTI,
DAVID ROBINSON,
ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant/Respondents.
/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND RELIEF FROM ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS MATTER came before the Court in Chambers for consideration of Plaintiffs’
Motion for Rehearing and Relief from Order Granting Summary Judgment e-filed on April 22,
2020 (the “Motion”), and after considering the matter, and being otherwise fully advised in the
premises, the Court finds and concludes as follows:
1. As stated in Muth v. AIU Ins. Co., 982 So.2d 749, 752 (Fla. 4% DCA 2008):
A trial court's decision on a motion for rehearing is reviewed for
abuse of discretion, as is a trial court's refusal to consider late
affidavite filad with a matian far rahaarina Coo Danailinan
GuuGaving AUeG Wit G Gigi 101 Teves, occ range Y.
Broward County, 914 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (en banc);
Lennertz v, Dorsey, 421 So.2d 820, 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). “The
purpose of a motion for rehearing is ‘to give the trial court an
opportunity to consider matters which it overlooked or failed to
consider ... and to correct any error if it becomes convinced that it
has erred.’ ” Gaffney v. Gaffney, 965 So.2d 1217, 1221 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2007) (auoting Carollo v. Carollo, 920 So.2d 16, 19 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2004)).
Id.; see also, Ferris v. Ferris, 417 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 4% DCA 1982)
2. Importantly, a motion to reconsider or for rehearing is not an opportunity to simply
reargue points and issues already made. See generally, Banderas v. Advance Petroleum, Inc., 716
So.2d 876 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (motion should not be used to express displeasure with court; re-
CHEN. DAIAARCACU AAIINTY Cl CUADAND ANAY FLED NAINAINNAN 44.0544 ANA
PILL. PAL BLAU VUUINE TT, EL, OHI. DUUN, ULLIAN, UtiZurzueU 11.2. it iveRichards v. Ace American Insurance Company
Case No. 502017CA12343XXXXMBAN
Order Granting in Part/Denying in Part Motion for Reheaing
Page 2 of 3
argument improper); Goter v. Brown, 682 So.2d 155, 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (motions for
rehearing should merely direct court to matters overlooked, without argument or further
advocacy); Elliott v. Elliott, 648 So.2d 135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (rehearing motion should not re-
argue matters, request court to change mind or ventilate displeasure with court's conclusion);
Whipple v. State, 431 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (motion should not re-argue matters already
argued).
3. The Court finds and concludes that Plaintiffs’ Motion fails to raise any issues
wwarthy af rahaaring ar ranancidaratinn that hava nat alraady haan raicad hy Dlaintiff at tha ariginal
Woluy 01 teneaiing, OF IeCOnsiueLauOl Wal Have OL aucauy OCC iaiocu UY 1 taut ae ue O1igiar
hearing and addressed by the Court, except for the issue of Plaintiff's standing addressed in
paragraph 23 of the Court’s Order Granting Ace’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment and
whether Plaintiff is entitled to additional discovery and submissions in opposition in light of
Defendant’s filing of its Reply Memorandum.
Based on the foregoing, it is thereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
A. The Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
1) Granted as to rehearing on the issue of Plaintiff's standing addressed in
paragraph 23 of the Court’s Order Granting Ace’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment and
whether Plaintiff is entitled to additional discovery and submissions in opposition in light of
Defendant’s filing of its Reply Memorandum.
2) Denied as to all other issues raised in the Motion.Richards v. Ace American Insurance Company
Case No. 502017CA12343XXXXMBAN
Order Granting in Part/Denying in Part Motion for Reheaing
Page 3 of 3
B. Hearing is scheduied on the matiers set forth in Paragraph A(1), above, for May 18,
2020 at 3:00 p.m. (1/2 hour reserved). The parties shall make arrangements for telephonic or video
hearing.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida
on April 23, 2020.
copies furnished:
AARON LELES
WAKKEN
DAVID ROBINSON
HENRY A. SEIDEN
MATTHEW CIVETTI
PHILIP E. GLATZER
OTATA DATTATNOD ANT
SUVA DANAVURAIN
HOWARD K. COATES, JR.
CIRCUIT JUDGE
No Address Available aaron.warren@clydeco.us
jeanetie.garcia@Clydeco.us
8779 NW 49TH DRIVE No E-mail Address Available
CORAL SPRINGS, FL
33067
6274 LINTON BLVD
STE 103
DELRAY BEACH, FL
33484
629 CRESTA CIRCLE
WEST PALM BEACH, FL
33413
No Address Available
SERVICE@SEIDENLA WFIRM.COM
No E-mail Address Available
pglatzer@marlowadler.com
mstewart@marlowadler.com
19901 DPIAU TTT AUPATIT OTA DATIANAD ANAT UNTO Tre
1241 DNIURDLL AVEINUD SLVA.DANAVURANWULIUEUU.UD
SUITE 1600 marta.reyes@clydeco.us
MIAMI, FL 33131
Preview
Filing # 106608783 E-Filed 04/23/2020 11:25:14 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION AN CASE NO. 50-2017-CA-012343-XXXX-MB TREVOR RICHARDS, NOVLAT RICHARDS, Plaintiff/Petitioners vs. MATTHEW CIVETTI, DAVID ROBINSON, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Respondents. / ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR REHEARING AND RELIEF FROM ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT THIS MATTER came before the Court in Chambers for consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Rehearing and Relief from Order Granting Summary Judgment e-filed on April 22, 2020 (the “Motion”), and after considering the matter, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court finds and concludes as follows: 1. As stated in Muth v. AIU Ins. Co., 982 So.2d 749, 752 (Fla. 4% DCA 2008): A trial court's decision on a motion for rehearing is reviewed for abuse of discretion, as is a trial court's refusal to consider late affidavite filad with a matian far rahaarina Coo Danailinan GuuGaving AUeG Wit G Gigi 101 Teves, occ range Y. Broward County, 914 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (en banc); Lennertz v, Dorsey, 421 So.2d 820, 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). “The purpose of a motion for rehearing is ‘to give the trial court an opportunity to consider matters which it overlooked or failed to consider ... and to correct any error if it becomes convinced that it has erred.’ ” Gaffney v. Gaffney, 965 So.2d 1217, 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (auoting Carollo v. Carollo, 920 So.2d 16, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)). Id.; see also, Ferris v. Ferris, 417 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 4% DCA 1982) 2. Importantly, a motion to reconsider or for rehearing is not an opportunity to simply reargue points and issues already made. See generally, Banderas v. Advance Petroleum, Inc., 716 So.2d 876 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (motion should not be used to express displeasure with court; re- CHEN. DAIAARCACU AAIINTY Cl CUADAND ANAY FLED NAINAINNAN 44.0544 ANA PILL. PAL BLAU VUUINE TT, EL, OHI. DUUN, ULLIAN, UtiZurzueU 11.2. it iveRichards v. Ace American Insurance Company Case No. 502017CA12343XXXXMBAN Order Granting in Part/Denying in Part Motion for Reheaing Page 2 of 3 argument improper); Goter v. Brown, 682 So.2d 155, 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (motions for rehearing should merely direct court to matters overlooked, without argument or further advocacy); Elliott v. Elliott, 648 So.2d 135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (rehearing motion should not re- argue matters, request court to change mind or ventilate displeasure with court's conclusion); Whipple v. State, 431 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (motion should not re-argue matters already argued). 3. The Court finds and concludes that Plaintiffs’ Motion fails to raise any issues wwarthy af rahaaring ar ranancidaratinn that hava nat alraady haan raicad hy Dlaintiff at tha ariginal Woluy 01 teneaiing, OF IeCOnsiueLauOl Wal Have OL aucauy OCC iaiocu UY 1 taut ae ue O1igiar hearing and addressed by the Court, except for the issue of Plaintiff's standing addressed in paragraph 23 of the Court’s Order Granting Ace’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment and whether Plaintiff is entitled to additional discovery and submissions in opposition in light of Defendant’s filing of its Reply Memorandum. Based on the foregoing, it is thereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: A. The Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1) Granted as to rehearing on the issue of Plaintiff's standing addressed in paragraph 23 of the Court’s Order Granting Ace’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment and whether Plaintiff is entitled to additional discovery and submissions in opposition in light of Defendant’s filing of its Reply Memorandum. 2) Denied as to all other issues raised in the Motion.Richards v. Ace American Insurance Company Case No. 502017CA12343XXXXMBAN Order Granting in Part/Denying in Part Motion for Reheaing Page 3 of 3 B. Hearing is scheduied on the matiers set forth in Paragraph A(1), above, for May 18, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. (1/2 hour reserved). The parties shall make arrangements for telephonic or video hearing. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida on April 23, 2020. copies furnished: AARON LELES WAKKEN DAVID ROBINSON HENRY A. SEIDEN MATTHEW CIVETTI PHILIP E. GLATZER OTATA DATTATNOD ANT SUVA DANAVURAIN HOWARD K. COATES, JR. CIRCUIT JUDGE No Address Available aaron.warren@clydeco.us jeanetie.garcia@Clydeco.us 8779 NW 49TH DRIVE No E-mail Address Available CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33067 6274 LINTON BLVD STE 103 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33484 629 CRESTA CIRCLE WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33413 No Address Available SERVICE@SEIDENLA WFIRM.COM No E-mail Address Available pglatzer@marlowadler.com mstewart@marlowadler.com 19901 DPIAU TTT AUPATIT OTA DATIANAD ANAT UNTO Tre 1241 DNIURDLL AVEINUD SLVA.DANAVURANWULIUEUU.UD SUITE 1600 marta.reyes@clydeco.us MIAMI, FL 33131