In re: Polaris Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
In re Polaris Marketing, Sales Practices, Case No. 18-cv-0939 (WMW/DTS) and Products Liability Litigation.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ letter request for permission to file a motion to reconsider. (Dkt. 61.) Plaintiffs contend that the Court’s March 6, 2019 Order, which granted in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss, “relies on an erroneous conception of Article III standing.” Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ request.
Local Rule 7.1(j) prohibits filing a motion for reconsideration without leave of court. A party may receive permission to file a motion for reconsideration only by showing “compelling circumstances.” LR 7.1(j). “Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”
Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Plaintiffs have not established the “compelling circumstances” required to obtain leave to file a motion for reconsideration. In its March 6, 2019 Order, the Court fully considered and addressed the arguments raised in Plaintiffs’ letter, and Plaintiffs have not identified a manifest error of law or fact in that Order. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request, (Dkt. 61), is DENIED.
Dated: April 2, 2019 s/Wilhelmina M. Wright Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
In re Polaris Marketing, Sales Practices, Case No. 18-cv-0939 (WMW/DTS) and Products Liability Litigation.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ letter request for permission to file a motion to reconsider. (Dkt. 61.) Plaintiffs contend that the Court’s March 6, 2019 Order, which granted in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss, “relies on an erroneous conception of Article III standing.” Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ request.
Local Rule 7.1(j) prohibits filing a motion for reconsideration without leave of court. A party may receive permission to file a motion for reconsideration only by showing “compelling circumstances.” LR 7.1(j). “Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”
Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Plaintiffs have not established the “compelling circumstances” required to obtain leave to file a motion for reconsideration. In its March 6, 2019 Order, the Court fully considered and addressed the arguments raised in Plaintiffs’ letter, and Plaintiffs have not identified a manifest error of law or fact in that Order. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request, (Dkt. 61), is DENIED.
Dated: April 2, 2019 s/Wilhelmina M. Wright Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.