Scheffler v. Gurstel Chargo, P.A.

Filing 122

ORDER striking 118 Motion to Reconsider; denying 120 Letter to District Judge Requesting Permission to File a Motion to Reconsider filed by Gurstel Chargo, P.A. (Written Opinion) Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 8/14/2017. (DLO)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil No. 15-4436(DSD/SER) Troy K. Scheffler, Plaintiff, v. ORDER Gurstel Chargo, P.A. Defendant. Peter J. Nickitas, Esq., 431 South 7th Street, Suite 2446, Minneapolis, MN 55415, counsel for plaintiff. Manuel H. Newburger, Esq. and Barron & Newburger, PC, 1212 Guadalupe, Suite 104, Austin, TX 78701 and Amy M. Goltz, Esq. and Gurstel Chargo, P.A., 6681 Country Club Drive, Golden Valley, MN 55427, counsel for defendant. This matter is before the court upon the request by defendant Gurstel Chargo, P.A. to file a motion to reconsider the court’s denial of its motion for sanctions. See ECF No. 116. Motions to reconsider require the express permission of the court and will be granted only upon a showing of “compelling circumstances.” D. Minn. LR 7.1(j). A motion to reconsider should not be employed to relitigate old issues but rather to “afford an opportunity for relief in extraordinary circumstances.” Dale & Selby Superette & Deli v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 838 F. Supp. 1346, 1348 (D. Minn. 1993). The court has reviewed Gurstel’s request and finds that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant reconsideration of the court’s prior ruling. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The request to withdraw the motion for reconsideration as filed in error is granted; 2. The motion for reconsideration [ECF No. 118] shall be stricken from the docket; and 3. The letter request for permission to file a motion to reconsider [ECF No. 120] is denied. Dated: August 14, 2017 s/David S. Doty David S. Doty, Judge United States District Court 2

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?