TCS Holdings, Inc. v. Onvoy, Inc.,

Filing 151

ORDER denying 133 Letter to District Judge requesting leave to file a motion to reconsider filed by Onvoy, Inc. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 10/17/08. (GMO) Modified on 10/20/2008 (lph).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA TCS Holdings, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Onvoy, Inc., Defendant. ________________________________________________________________________ Brian M. McSherry, Esq., Robert E. Kuderer, Esq., and Stacey A. Molde, Esq., Johnson & Condon, PA, counsel for Plaintiff. Eric J. Nystrom, Esq., and John C. Ekman, Esq., Lindquist & Vennum PLLP, counsel for Defendant.
________________________________________________________________________

Civil No. 07-1200 (DWF/AJB)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On September 4, 2008, the Court issued an order in this case denying a Motion for Summary Judgment brought by Onvoy, Inc. ("Onvoy"); granting in part and denying in part a Motion for Summary Judgment brought by TCS Holdings, Inc. ("TCS"); and granting in part and denying in part a Motion for Summary Judgment on Fraud and Punitive Damages Claims brought by Onvoy. (Doc. No. 121.) By letter dated October 7, 2008, Onvoy requested that the Court reconsider two findings in its September 4 Order. TCS opposes Onvoy's request. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(g), a request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration will only be granted upon a showing of "compelling circumstances." A motion to reconsider should not be employed to relitigate old issues but to "afford an opportunity for relief in extraordinary circumstances." Dale & Selby Superette & Deli v.

U. S. Dept. of Agric., 838 F. Supp. 1346, 1348 (D. Minn. 1993). Here, Onvoy asserts that the Court failed to properly consider DeWitt v. Quarterback Sports Federation, Inc., 45 F.R.D. 252 (D. Minn. 1968), and that the Court erred in allowing TCS's fraud claim to proceed. Onvoy's arguments regarding the applicability of the DeWitt case and the merits of TCS's fraud claim were made in support of its motions for summary judgment and in opposition to TCS's motion, and the Court considered them fully at that time. Neither argument presents a compelling circumstance warranting reconsideration of the Court's September 4 Order. Accordingly, Onvoy's request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is denied. ORDER For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. DENIED. Dated: October 17, 2008 s/Donovan W. Frank DONOVAN W. FRANK Judge of United States District Court Onvoy's request for leave to file a motion to reconsider (Doc. No. 133) is

2