Fredin v. Miller
Fredin v. Miller
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Brock Fredin, Case No. 19-cv-3051 (SRN/HB) Plaintiff, ORDER v. Grace Elizabeth Miller, Catherine Schaefer, Lindsey Middlecamp, David Middlecamp, Peter Mayer, David Green, Dorsey and Whitney, Defendants.
Brock Fredin, 1180 7th Ave., Baldwin, WI 54002, pro se.
Adam C. Ballinger, Ballard Spahr LLP, 2000 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th St., Minneapolis, MN 55402; K. Jon Breyer, Kutak Rock LLP, 60 S. 6th St., Ste. 3400, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Defendants Miller, Schaefer, L. Middlecamp, and D. Middlecamp.
Eric R. Sherman and Peter M. Lancaster, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Defendants Mayer, Green, and Dorsey and Whitney
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Brock Fredin’s Letter Request [Doc. No. 95], seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Fredin asks the Court to reconsider its June 10, 2020 Order [Doc. No. 93], in which the Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss.
Local Rule 7.1(j) of this Court requires a party seeking reconsideration to first obtain permission to file such a motion. D. Minn. L.R. 7.1(j). A party may receive permission only by showing “compelling circumstances.” Id. Motions for reconsideration serve the limited purpose of “correct[ing] manifest errors of law or fact or . . . present[ing] newly discovered evidence.” Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988) (quoting Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987)).
Plaintiff has not established “compelling circumstances” necessary to obtain leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Letter Request [Doc. No. 95] seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
To the extent that Plaintiff requests the recusal of the judges assigned to this case, his request is likewise DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 12, 2020 s/Susan Richard Nelson SUSAN RICHARD NELSON United States District Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Brock Fredin, Case No. 19-cv-3051 (SRN/HB) Plaintiff, ORDER v. Grace Elizabeth Miller, Catherine Schaefer, Lindsey Middlecamp, David Middlecamp, Peter Mayer, David Green, Dorsey and Whitney, Defendants.
Brock Fredin, 1180 7th Ave., Baldwin, WI 54002, pro se.
Adam C. Ballinger, Ballard Spahr LLP, 2000 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th St., Minneapolis, MN 55402; K. Jon Breyer, Kutak Rock LLP, 60 S. 6th St., Ste. 3400, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Defendants Miller, Schaefer, L. Middlecamp, and D. Middlecamp.
Eric R. Sherman and Peter M. Lancaster, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Defendants Mayer, Green, and Dorsey and Whitney
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Brock Fredin’s Letter Request [Doc. No. 95], seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Fredin asks the Court to reconsider its June 10, 2020 Order [Doc. No. 93], in which the Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss.
Local Rule 7.1(j) of this Court requires a party seeking reconsideration to first obtain permission to file such a motion. D. Minn. L.R. 7.1(j). A party may receive permission only by showing “compelling circumstances.” Id. Motions for reconsideration serve the limited purpose of “correct[ing] manifest errors of law or fact or . . . present[ing] newly discovered evidence.” Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988) (quoting Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987)).
Plaintiff has not established “compelling circumstances” necessary to obtain leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Letter Request [Doc. No. 95] seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
To the extent that Plaintiff requests the recusal of the judges assigned to this case, his request is likewise DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 12, 2020 s/Susan Richard Nelson SUSAN RICHARD NELSON United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.