H.F.S. Properties, LLP v. Foot Locker Specialty, Inc.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: HFS's Letter Request to File a Motion for Reconsideration 48 is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on 3/8/17. (GRR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
H.F.S. PROPERTIES, a Minnesota
MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER
Civil File No. 15-3273 (MJD/SER)
FOOT LOCKER SPECIALTY, INC.,
Scott G. Harris, David G. Parry, and Benjamin D. Eastburn, Stinson Leonard
Street LLP, Counsel for Plaintiff.
James J. Hartnett, IV, and Kyle R. Hardwick, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Counsel
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff H.F.S.
Properties’ (“HFS”) Letter Request to File a Motion for Reconsideration. [Docket
No. 48] HFS requests permission to file a formal motion for reconsideration of
the Court’s February 2, 2017 Order [Docket No. 47] granting in part and denying
in part Defendant Foot Locker Specialty, Inc.’s (“Foot Locker”) Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment and granting HFS’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
The Local Rules provide that a motion to reconsider can only be filed with
the Court’s express permission, and such permission can only be obtained if the
party shows “compelling circumstances.” L.R. 7.1(j). The district court’s
decision on a motion for reconsideration rests within its discretion. Hagerman v.
Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 413 (8th Cir. 1988).
Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence. . . . Nor should a motion for reconsideration serve as the
occasion to tender new legal theories for the first time.
Id. at 414 (citation omitted).
The Court has thoroughly reviewed HFS’s letter request and the Court’s
February 2, 2017 Order, and concludes that the Court’s Order contains no
manifest errors of law or fact. Nor has HFS offered new evidence that would
alter the Court’s Order. HFS has not shown compelling circumstances to support
filing a motion to reconsider.
The Court notes that consideration of the parties’ early summary judgment
motions was permitted based on a request from both parties. The parties then
proceeded to extensively brief the issues in more than 150 pages of briefing
supported by copious exhibits and a thorough oral argument. The question of
the interpretation of the interplay of Article 2 of the 1920 Lease and Article 5 of
the 1949 Lease was repeatedly addressed by both parties. (See, e.g., [Docket No.
40] HFS Opp. Brief at 16-20.) And HFS extensively argued that Article 2 should
be interpreted to require Foot Locker to make all repairs necessary to comply
with current code requirements, in a section of its brief entitled “FL Failed to
Follow Laws and Ordinances Applicable to the Use of the Woolworth Building
And, Therefore, Is Responsible for Bringing the Building Into Compliance,”
which included a subheading entitled “To the Extent the City of St. Paul Requires
Any Repairs to Comply with Current Building Code Provisions, the Cost of
Those Repairs Are FL’s Obligation.” (See id. at 28, 31.) Therefore, the Court
finds HFS’s claim that it “had no notice, or adequate opportunity to fully submit
evidence and arguments” regarding these issues to be blatantly false.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HFS’s Letter Request to File a Motion for Reconsideration [Docket No. 48]
Dated: March 8, 2017
s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
United States District Court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?