GOVERN. PERSONNEL SERV. v. GOVERN. PERSONNEL MUT.
Citation | 759 F. Supp. 792 |
Decision Date | 14 March 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 86-1566-CIV-T-17(A).,86-1566-CIV-T-17(A). |
Parties | GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO., et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
John R. Newcomer, Yado, Keel, Nelson & Bergmann, P.A., Tampa, Fla., Richard E. Berman, Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Elihu H. Berman, Krug, Berman & Silverman, Clearwater, Fla., Christopher Ferguson, Riden, Earle & Kiefner, St. Petersburg, Fla., for plaintiffs.
Gerald W. Nelson, Yado, Salem, Keel, Nelson & Bergman, P.A., Tampa, Fla., for James Roberts.
Richard Candelora, Trenam, Simmons, Kemker, Sharf, Frye & O'Neill, for defendants.
ORDER ON MOTIONS
The cause is before the Court on responses from both parties to this Court's order of February 22, 1991; motion to adjudicate charging lien; and motion for reconsideration.
Plaintiffs' former counsel Merkle & Magri, P.A. filed a motion to adjudicate a charging lien against Plaintiffs on February 22, 1991. To date no objection has been filed to that motion. The Court has reviewed the motion and finds it well-taken. The Court, therefore, orders that: 1) The instant action shall not be dismissed voluntarily, or by the court, prior to disposition of the charging lien; 2) All parties shall give notice to Merkle & Magri, P.A. of any proceedings intended to terminate the cause of action which effects disbursal of any proceeds obtained or recovered by Plaintiffs; and 3) The Court reserves jurisdiction to determine the amount of the lien and to enforce the lien, if necessary.
Count V asserted a claim of slander and libel against GPM. In its motion, Defendant GPM contended that the count failed to state a cause of action, as a matter of law, because any defamatory statements were privileged and because Plaintiffs consented to any statement made by GPM. On February 22, 1991, this Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Count V, stating:
The motion for reconsideration does not raise any new issues but seeks to relitigate that which has already been considered by the Court and found lacking. The Court finds no basis for reconsideration of its previous dismissal of Count V.
In the order of February 22, 1991, the Court addressed the issue of whether or not Plaintiffs established a tort independent of the breach of contract, as claimed in Count I of the second amended complaint.
Count I of the second amended complaint alleges common law fraud against the GPM defendants: GPM, Peter Hennessey, III, P.J. Hennessey, and Frank Hoey. Specifically, the second amended complaint states that:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hipp v. Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co.
...raise new issues and, instead, only relitigates what has already been found lacking. See Government Personnel Serv., Inc. v. Government Personnel Mut. Life Ins. Co., 759 F.Supp. 792, 793 (M.D.Fla.1991), aff'd, 986 F.2d 506 (11th Here, the Defendant has presented neither new argument nor new......
-
In re Martinez
...Socialist Workers Party v. Leahy, 957 F.Supp. 1262, 1263 (S.D.Fla.1997) (citing Government Personnel Services, Inc. v. Government Personnel Mutual Life Ins. Co., 759 F.Supp. 792, 793 (M.D.Fla.1991)). The motion should also demonstrate why the court should reconsider its prior decisions, and......
-
Socialist Workers Party v. Leahy
...should raise new issues, not merely address issues litigated previously. Government Personnel Services, Inc. v. Government Personnel Mutual Life Ins. Co., 759 F.Supp. 792, 793 (M.D.Fla.1991). PaineWebber Income Properties v. Mobil Oil Corp., 902 F.Supp. 1514 (M.D.Fla.1995); Scheck v. Burger......
-
PaineWebber Income Properties v. Mobil Oil Corp.
...should raise new issues, not merely readdress issues litigated previously. Government Personnel Services, Inc. v. Government Personnel Life Insurance Co., 759 F.Supp. 792, 793 (M.D.Fla.1991). RECONSIDERATION OF SUMMARY Plaintiff alleges that the Court erred in failing to consider the approp......