Cohen v. Consilio LLC
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Cohen v. Consilio LLC
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CIVIL NO. 20-1689 (DSD/DTS)
Bruce C. Cohen, as individually,
as private attorney general, and
on behalf of similarly situated
individuals,
Plaintiffs,
v. ORDER
Consilio LLC, and
Consilio Services, LLC,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court upon plaintiff Bruce Cohen’s
motion to vacate judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e).
On March 6, 2024, the court granted the motion for summary
judgment by defendants Consilio LLC and Consilio Services, LLC
(collectively, Consilio). In doing so, the court specifically
dismissed Cohen’s claims under the Minnesota Wage Theft Act (MWTA),
the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act (MFLSA), and the Minnesota
Payment of Wages Act (MPWA). ECF No. 147. Cohen argues that the
court erred in three ways.
Cohen first contends that the court erred in determining that
he is not entitled to seek statutory penalties under the MPWA.
Second, he claims that the court erred in dismissing his MFLSA
claims with prejudice because it deprives him of the right to seek
injunctive relief requiring Consilio to obey the law. Third, he
argues that the court erred in not allowing him to pursue
attorney’s fees.
A motion to alter or amend judgment, pursuant to Rule 59(e),
serves the limited function of “correcting manifest errors of law
or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Innovative Home
Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141
F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (internal quotations omitted). Rule 59(e) does not afford an opportunity to present evidence or legal argument that could have been offered prior to entry of judgment. Freeman v. Busch,349 F.3d 582, 589
(8th Cir. 2003). Nor can the rule be used to rehash arguments already made and lost. Schoffstall v. Henderson,223 F.3d 818, 827
(8th Cir. 2000). A motion under Rule 59 “is not intended to routinely give litigants a second bite at the apple, but to afford an opportunity for relief in extraordinary circumstances.” Dale & Selby Superette & Deli v. U.S. Dep’t of Ag.,838 F. Supp. 1346, 1348
(D. Minn. 1993). The court has “broad discretion in determining whether to open a judgment pursuant to a Rule 59(e) motion.” Roudybush v. Zabel,813 F.2d 173, 178
(8th Cir. 1987).
The court has reviewed the parties’ briefing on the motion
for summary judgment as well as the briefs submitted for purposes
of the present motion. Based on that review, the court considers
Cohen’s motion to be nothing more than an attempt to relitigate
issues previously raised. In support of the instant motion, Cohen
relies on no new evidence or recently developed law, but instead
seeks only to rehash arguments already made and lost. The court
will not grant relief based on such efforts.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion under Rule
59(e) [ECF No. 149] is denied.
Dated: April 24, 2024 s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CIVIL NO. 20-1689 (DSD/DTS)
Bruce C. Cohen, as individually,
as private attorney general, and
on behalf of similarly situated
individuals,
Plaintiffs,
v. ORDER
Consilio LLC, and
Consilio Services, LLC,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court upon plaintiff Bruce Cohen’s
motion to vacate judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e).
On March 6, 2024, the court granted the motion for summary
judgment by defendants Consilio LLC and Consilio Services, LLC
(collectively, Consilio). In doing so, the court specifically
dismissed Cohen’s claims under the Minnesota Wage Theft Act (MWTA),
the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act (MFLSA), and the Minnesota
Payment of Wages Act (MPWA). ECF No. 147. Cohen argues that the
court erred in three ways.
Cohen first contends that the court erred in determining that
he is not entitled to seek statutory penalties under the MPWA.
Second, he claims that the court erred in dismissing his MFLSA
claims with prejudice because it deprives him of the right to seek
injunctive relief requiring Consilio to obey the law. Third, he
argues that the court erred in not allowing him to pursue
attorney’s fees.
A motion to alter or amend judgment, pursuant to Rule 59(e),
serves the limited function of “correcting manifest errors of law
or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Innovative Home
Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141
F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (internal quotations omitted). Rule 59(e) does not afford an opportunity to present evidence or legal argument that could have been offered prior to entry of judgment. Freeman v. Busch,349 F.3d 582, 589
(8th Cir. 2003). Nor can the rule be used to rehash arguments already made and lost. Schoffstall v. Henderson,223 F.3d 818, 827
(8th Cir. 2000). A motion under Rule 59 “is not intended to routinely give litigants a second bite at the apple, but to afford an opportunity for relief in extraordinary circumstances.” Dale & Selby Superette & Deli v. U.S. Dep’t of Ag.,838 F. Supp. 1346, 1348
(D. Minn. 1993). The court has “broad discretion in determining whether to open a judgment pursuant to a Rule 59(e) motion.” Roudybush v. Zabel,813 F.2d 173, 178
(8th Cir. 1987).
The court has reviewed the parties’ briefing on the motion
for summary judgment as well as the briefs submitted for purposes
of the present motion. Based on that review, the court considers
Cohen’s motion to be nothing more than an attempt to relitigate
issues previously raised. In support of the instant motion, Cohen
relies on no new evidence or recently developed law, but instead
seeks only to rehash arguments already made and lost. The court
will not grant relief based on such efforts.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion under Rule
59(e) [ECF No. 149] is denied.
Dated: April 24, 2024 s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court Reference
- Status
- Unknown