Summary
The United States Magistrate Judge recommends denying Plaintiff Ayatollah Hylton’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. The recommendation concludes that Plaintiff failed to identify a basis for reconsideration and had already received multiple opportunities to amend the complaint. It also recommends denying as moot Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice.
Holdings
- Plaintiff did not present an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice warranting reconsideration; the magistrate judge therefore recommended denial of the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment.
- The court may deny further leave to amend when a plaintiff has failed to cure deficiencies despite receiving an opportunity to do so; because Plaintiff had filed three deficient complaints and had received multiple opportunities to amend, another opportunity was not warranted.
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff established grounds for altering or amending the judgment dismissing the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.
- Whether Plaintiff should receive another opportunity to amend the Complaint after filing three deficient versions.
- Whether Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice should be denied as moot.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (4)
- Su v. Local 568, Transp. Workers Union of Am., AFL-CIO, 699 F. Supp. 3d 1333, 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2023)(followed)
- Produce Pay, Inc. v. Agrosale, Inc., 533 F. Supp. 3d 1140, 1147 (S.D. Fla. 2021)(followed)
- Campero USA Corp. v. ADS Foodservice, LLC, 916 F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1292-93 (S.D. Fla. 2012)(followed)
- Grappell v. Cardona, No. 24-cv-23937, 2025 WL 947545, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2025)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…