Opinion
CASE NO: 8:09-cv-2267-T-26TGW.
September 21, 2010
ORDER
Upon due consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Striking Plaintiff's Jury Trial Demand (Dkt. 42), the Court finds that the motion is due to be denied. The Fourth and Ninth Circuit cases upon which Plaintiff again cites to the Court are not binding precedent. Based on the file and the law cited in this Court's prior order, the Court finds that a relevant factor of significant weight has not been overlooked to correct clear error, to prevent manifest injustice, or to meet any other requirements to warrant reconsideration of the prior order. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6); Sussman v. Salem, Saxon Neilsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994) (citing three major grounds for reconsideration as change in the law, new evidence, and need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Striking Plaintiff's Jury Trial Demand (Dkt. 42) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on September 21, 2010.
The Court finds it unnecessary for Defendants to file a response.