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)

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