Reichel
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:24-cv-04154
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Reichel v. Jensen-Carter, Judge Provinzino denied Reichel’s request to seek reconsideration of an earlier bankruptcy appeal ruling.
Bryan S. Reichel, whose request was denied, and Maryjo Jensen-Carter, Trustee, as appellee.
What happened
Bryan S. Reichel asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision affirming a bankruptcy judge’s denial of his motion to dismiss certain creditors’ claims against his bankruptcy estate for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Reichel argued that the earlier decision contained clear legal errors causing a “manifest injustice.” He did not claim to have newly discovered evidence, and the court found that he repeated earlier arguments or raised arguments that courts had already rejected.
Judge Laura M. Provinzino ruled that Reichel had not shown the compelling circumstances required to request reconsideration under the court’s local rule. The court denied his request for reconsideration.
The detailed version
- Reichel · No. 0:24-cv-04154
- Laura M. Provinzino
- Apr. 17, 2025
Background
On March 19, 2025, the court affirmed Bankruptcy Judge Katherine A. Constantine’s decision denying Reichel’s motion to dismiss certain creditors’ claims against his bankruptcy estate for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Reichel then requested permission to file a motion asking the court to reconsider that decision.
Legal standard
Local Rule 7.1(j) requires a party to obtain the court’s permission before filing a motion for reconsideration. Permission is available only when the party shows “compelling circumstances.” The court explained that reconsideration has a limited purpose: correcting a clear legal or factual error or considering newly discovered evidence. It cannot be used to repeat arguments already made, present evidence or arguments that could have been presented earlier, or raise new legal theories for the first time.
Court’s analysis
Reichel did not claim to have newly discovered evidence. Instead, he argued that the court’s March 19 order contained clear legal errors and created a “manifest injustice.” The court found that he merely repeated arguments previously made or advanced arguments that the court and other courts had already rejected. The court also noted Reichel’s belief that his criminal sentence had been affected by allegedly false claims against his bankruptcy estate, but concluded that his arguments did not fit the limited purpose of reconsideration.
Ruling
Judge Laura M. Provinzino concluded that Reichel failed to show the compelling circumstances required by Local Rule 7.1(j). The court therefore ordered that Reichel’s Request for Reconsideration, ECF No. 18, was DENIED.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.