Hillesheim v. Carlson Hardware Company et al

Filing 33

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Plaintiff Zach Hillesheim's request to file a motion for reconsideration. 27 - 29 is DENIED.(Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on 3/8/17. (GRR)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ZACH HILLESHEIM, Plaintiff, v. ORDER Civil File No. 16-2989 (MJD/LIB) CARLSON HARDWARE CO., BERNARD CARLSON, and ETHEL CARLSON, Defendants. Padraigin Browne, Browne Law LLC, Counsel for Plaintiff. David M. Wilk and Stephanie L. Chandler, Larson King, LLP, Counsel for Defendants. The above-entitled matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Zach Hillesheim’s letter request to file a motion for reconsideration. [Docket Nos. 2729] Plaintiff requests permission to file a formal motion for reconsideration of the Court’s February 7, 2017 Order [Docket No. 26] reversing the portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Order [Docket No. 24] permitting Peter Hansmeier to conduct the site inspection. 1 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 Plaintiff’s request and the Court’s February 7, 2017 Order, and concludes that the Court’s Order contains no manifest errors of law or fact. Nor has Plaintiff offered new evidence that would alter the Court’s Order. Plaintiff has not shown compelling circumstances to support filing a motion to reconsider. Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 Plaintiff Zach Hillesheim’s request to file a motion for reconsideration. [Docket Nos. 27- 29] is DENIED. Dated: March 8, 2017 s/ Michael J. Davis Michael J. Davis United States District Court 3

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?