Kunzer v. Foster
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:24-cv-03726
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Kunzer v. Foster, Judge Provinzino denied Kunzer’s motions to change earlier orders dismissing his complaint and imposing sanctions.
Kenneth R. Kunzer’s requests to change the earlier dismissal and sanctions orders were denied; the defendants opposed the motions, except Kim A. Ach and the Estate of Steve B. Ach, who did not respond according to the opinion.
What happened
In Kunzer v. Foster, the court had previously dismissed Kenneth R. Kunzer’s complaint, granted Mark J. Kemper’s sanctions motion, and imposed a filing restriction on Kunzer. Kunzer then asked the court to change both orders.
Kunzer’s motions repeated allegations from his complaint and arguments he had already made. He also argued that the dismissal order left out some factual allegations, but the court said it had considered the allegations relevant to deciding the motions and had assumed their truth.
The court found that Kunzer had not shown a clear legal or factual error and denied both motions. Judge Laura M. Provinzino signed the order.
The detailed version
- Kunzer v. Foster · No. 0:24-cv-03726
- Laura M. Provinzino
- May 20, 2025
Background
On April 17, 2025, the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss Kenneth R. Kunzer’s complaint. The court also granted Mark J. Kemper’s motion for sanctions because it found Kunzer’s complaint frivolous, and imposed a filing restriction on Kunzer.
Kunzer timely filed two motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), asking the court to amend the judgments associated with the dismissal and sanctions orders. All defendants except Kim A. Ach and the Estate of Steve B. Ach responded in opposition.
Rule 59(e) Standard
The court explained that a Rule 59(e) motion has a limited purpose: correcting a clear error of law or fact or presenting newly discovered evidence. It cannot be used to introduce new evidence, present new legal theories, raise arguments that could have been made earlier, or repeat arguments that the court previously considered and rejected.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Kunzer’s motions largely repeated the allegations in his complaint and the arguments he had already made in opposing the defendants’ dismissal motions and Kemper’s sanctions motion. The court noted that Kunzer’s motion concerning the sanctions order repeated arguments from his earlier opposition brief word for word.
Kunzer also argued that the dismissal order did not include certain factual allegations from his complaint. The court explained that it included only the allegations relevant to deciding the dismissal motions. It further stated that, even assuming all of the factual allegations were true, the complaint still did not state a plausible claim for relief. The court also said that some asserted “facts” were legal conclusions, which are not accepted as true when deciding a motion to dismiss.
Disposition
The court concluded that Kunzer had not identified a clear legal or factual error and had merely repeated arguments previously made and rejected. It therefore DENIED Kunzer’s Rule 59(e) motions, ECF Nos. 102 and 103. Judge Laura M. Provinzino signed the order on May 20, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.