govinfo:USCOURTS-gand-1_24-cv-00089-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
 ATLANTA DIVISION 
 
NAKIA HAMPTON, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
 
 
 
 v. 
 
 CIVIL ACTION FILE 
 NO. 1:24-CV-00089-TWT 
 PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., et 
al., 
 
 
 Defendants. 
 
 
 OPINION AND ORDER 
This is a personal injury action. It is before the Court on the Defendant 
Publix Super Markets, Inc. ’s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 7 1] of the 
Court’s Order denying the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 
Plaintiff Nakia Hampton opposes the motion. Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules 
of Civil Procedure authorizes district courts to alter or amend a judgment upon 
motion. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 59(e). “The decision to alter or amend judgment 
is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge and will not be 
overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.” Am. Home Assurance Co. 
v. Glenn Estess & Assocs., Inc. , 763 F.2d 1237, 1238 –39 (11th Cir. 1985). 
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically authorize 
motions for reconsideration, they are common in practice. 
Local Rule 7.2 states that motions for reconsideration are not to be filed 
“as a matter of routine practice,” but only when “absolutely necessary.” LR 
7.2(E), NDGa. In particular, a party may move for reconsideration when there 

2 
 
is (1) newly discovered evidence, (2) an intervening change in controlling law, 
or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Del. 
Valley Floral Grp., Inc. v. Shaw Rose Nets, LLC , 597 F.3d 1374, 1383 (11 Cir. 
2010). A manifest error of law is “the wholesale disregard, misapplication, or 
failure to recognize controlling precedent.” Durden v. State Farm Fire & Cas. 
Co., 2017 WL 3723118, at *6 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 29, 2017) (citation omitted). By 
contrast, a motion for reconsideration is not a “vehicle to present new 
arguments or evidence that should have been raised earlier, introduce novel 
legal theories, or repackage familiar arguments to test whether the Court will 
change its mind.” 
Brogdon ex rel. Cline v. Nat’l Healthcare Corp., 103 F. Supp. 
2d 1322, 1338 (N.D. Ga. 2000). 
Publix has not presented new evidence or a change in controlling law, 
but argues this motion based upon the need to correct clear errors or prevent 
manifest injustice. ( Def.’s Mot. for Recons., at 2 –3). Publix cite d cases to 
continue arguing it had no actual knowledge and that there is no genuine 
dispute as to this issue. However, Hampton provided evidence that Publix had 
actual knowledge of the hazard created by the drink dispenser. Compare St. 
Joseph’s Hosp. of Atlanta, Inc. v. Hall , 344 Ga. App. 1, 3 (20 17) (holding no 
actual knowledge was present on the general basis of ice re-freezing as specific 
knowledge). The Court agrees with Hampton’s argument that Publix’s reliance 
on Drossman v. Wal -Mart Stores East, LP , 374 Ga. App. 285 (2025), is 

3 
inapposite. ( Pl.’s Resp. to Mot. for Recons., at 4). In Drossman, the court 
affirmed actual knowledge was not present in part because spill pads were 
placed away from the freezer in question. Id. at 287. But here, Publix’s spill 
pads were placed closer to the water source. Additionally, Publix continues to 
argue that the video footage shows when and where the liquid first appears on 
the floor. (Def.’s Mot. for Recons., at 4–5). The Court could not at the summary 
judgment stage, and cannot still, determine that to be a genuinely undisputed 
fact. The video footage is unclear as to where the water originates from, as the 
alluded footnote indicates. ( Op. & Order dated Mar. 23, 2026, at 8, n. 15). 
Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the non -movant, the Court 
appropriately denied summary judgment. A jury should determine the water’s 
source. Moreover, the Court denied summary judgment as to vicarious liability 
on the same grounds . Therefore, the Court will prohibit Publix’s attempt to 
relitigate summary judgment and deny the Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 
71]. 
SO ORDERED, this day of June, 2026. 
______________________________ 
THO
MAS W. THRASH, JR. 
United States District Judge 
1st

Passage view · GavelSight