Fredin v. Miller et al

Filing 315

ORDER denying 306 Motion to Reconsider re 304 Order on Motion for Sanctions filed by Brock Fredin. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 9/6/2022. (SMD)

CASE 0:18-cv-00466-SRN-HB Doc. 315 Filed 09/06/22 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Brock Fredin,

Case No. 17-cv-03058 (SRN/HB)

Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
Lindsey Middlecamp,
Defendant.
Brock Fredin,

Case No. 18-cv-00466 (SRN/HB)

Plaintiff,
v.
Grace Elizabeth Miller et al.,
Defendant.
Brock Fredin,

Case No. 20-cv-01929 (SRN/HB)

Plaintiff,
v.
Jamie Kreil,
Defendant.
Brock Fredin, 1180 Seventh Avenue, Baldwin, WI 54002, Pro Se.
K. Jon Breyer, Kutak Rock LLP, 60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3400, Minneapolis, MN
55402, for Defendants Lindsey Middlecamp, Grace Elizabeth Miller, and Catherine
Marie Schaefer.

1

CASE 0:18-cv-00466-SRN-HB Doc. 315 Filed 09/06/22 Page 2 of 4

Anne M. Lochner, Charles Gokey, and Haynes Hansen, Robins Kaplan LLP, 800 LaSalle
Avenue, Suite 2800, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Defendant Jamie Kreil.
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Brock Fredin’s Motion to Reconsider
filed in three related cases [17-cv-03058, Doc. No. 329; 18-cv-00466, Doc. No. 306; 20cv-01929, Doc. No. 223]. Based on a review of the files, submissions, and proceedings
herein, and for the reasons below, the Court DENIES the motion.
I.

BACKGROUND
This Court ruled on seven motions in its June 2, 2022 Order [17-cv-03058, Doc. No.

328; 18-cv-00466, Doc. No. 304; 20-cv-01929, Doc. No. 220].

Without seeking

permission from the Court, Mr. Fredin responded by filing this motion to reconsider. In
his motion, he contends that (1) the Court erred in calculating the fees awarded to defense
counsel, (2) the Court applied the wrong legal standard to his motion for Rule 11 sanctions,
and (3) the Court’s rulings are inconsistent with Eighth Circuit precedent. (Pl.’s Mem. [17cv-03058, Doc. No. 330; 18-cv-00466, Doc. No. 307; 20-cv-01929, Doc. No. 224] at 4-5.)
Defendants respond that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied for three reasons. (Def.
Kriel’s Opp’n [20-cv-01929, Doc. No 231]; Def. Middlecamp, Miller, & Schaefer’s Opp’n
[17-cv-03058, Doc. No. 336; 18-cv-00466, Doc. No. 314] at 2.) 1 First, they contend that
Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because he never sought permission from the Court to

Middlecamp, Miller, and Schaefer incorporate Kriel’s opposition memorandum into
their opposition. The Court, therefore, only refers to Kreil’s opposition going forward.
1

2

CASE 0:18-cv-00466-SRN-HB Doc. 315 Filed 09/06/22 Page 3 of 4

file his motion. (Kriel’s Opp’n at 1.) Second, they contend that his motion lacks merit for
failing to identify newly discovered evidence or to cite compelling circumstances requiring
reconsideration. (Id.) Lastly, they contend that the Court’s imposition of sanctions was
justified. (Id.)
II.

DISCUSSION
Local Rule 7.1(j) of this Court requires a party seeking reconsideration to first obtain

permission to file such a motion. D. Minn. L.R. 7.1(j). A party may receive permission
only by showing “compelling circumstances.” Id. Motions for reconsideration serve the
limited purpose of “ ‘correct[ing] manifest errors of law or fact or . . . present[ing] newly
discovered evidence.’ ” Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir.
1988) (quoting Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987)).
The Court denies Mr. Fredin’s motion for failing to follow the procedural
requirement in Local Rule 7.1(j). See Ellis v. City of Minneapolis, 518 F. App’x 502, 504
(8th Cir. 2013) (holding that a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a
motion where a party fails “to follow procedural rules”). Even assuming he had followed
the applicable rule, the Court finds that Mr. Fredin has not established “compelling
circumstances” necessary to obtain leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
Based on the submissions and the entire file and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider [17-cv-03058, Doc. No. 329;
18-cv-00466, Doc. No. 306; 20-cv-01929, Doc. No. 223] is DENIED.

3

CASE 0:18-cv-00466-SRN-HB Doc. 315 Filed 09/06/22 Page 4 of 4

Dated: September 6, 2022

s/ Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge

4