Event Sales, Inc. v. TJX Companies, Inc. The
Event Sales, Inc. v. The TJX Companies, Inc.; Federal Express Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; and FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:23-cv-03444
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Event Sales v. TJX Companies, Judge Menendez denied Event Sales's request to file a motion to reconsider the court's earlier summary judgment ruling on damages.
Businesses or parties involved in breach-of-contract litigation in federal court who seek to challenge a summary judgment damages ruling; this ruling illustrates that disagreement with a court's prior reasoning does not meet the high bar required to obtain permission to file a motion for reconsideration under local rules.
What happened
In Event Sales, Inc. v. The TJX Companies, Inc. et al., No. 23-cv-3444, Plaintiff Event Sales asked the court for permission to file a motion to reconsider a prior ruling that had granted summary judgment in favor of TJX on TJX's breach-of-contract counterclaim. Specifically, Event Sales argued that the court's damages determination rested on a disputed factual issue that was never properly addressed, calling it an error arising from oversight or omission.
The court explained that under local rules, a party must show 'compelling circumstances' to obtain permission to file a reconsideration motion. Such motions are reserved for correcting clear errors of law or fact, or for presenting newly discovered evidence — not for relitigating issues already decided. The court found that it had, in fact, already considered and rejected Event Sales's arguments about whether an enforceable contract existed between the parties during the relevant period, and the damages ruling reflected that finding.
Judge Katherine Menendez concluded that Event Sales's request amounted to a disagreement with the court's prior ruling rather than identifying a genuine error or new evidence. She denied the request for permission to file a motion to reconsider, noting that the proper avenue for challenging the ruling is an appeal.
The detailed version
- Event Sales, Inc. v. TJX Companies, Inc. The · No. 0:23-cv-03444
- Katherine Menendez
- Oct. 8, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Event Sales, Inc. brought this lawsuit against The TJX Companies, Inc. and two FedEx entities. TJX filed a counterclaim against Event Sales for breach of contract. The court previously granted summary judgment (a ruling based on undisputed facts, without a full trial) in favor of TJX on that counterclaim, including a determination of damages. Event Sales then sought the court's permission — required under District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(j) before a formal motion can be filed — to move for reconsideration of that damages ruling.
Event Sales's Argument
Event Sales contended that the court's damages determination rested on a disputed factual issue — specifically, whether an enforceable contract existed between the parties from December 1, 2022 through March 30, 2023 — that was not substantively addressed in the summary judgment order. Event Sales characterized this as an 'error arising from oversight or omission.'
Legal Standard for Reconsideration
Under District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(j), a party must demonstrate 'compelling circumstances' to obtain permission to file a motion for reconsideration. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that such motions serve the limited purpose of correcting manifest (i.e., obvious) errors of law or fact, or presenting newly discovered evidence. Reconsideration is not a vehicle to relitigate issues already decided; it is reserved for extraordinary circumstances.
Court's Analysis
The court rejected Event Sales's characterization that the damages issue was overlooked. Citing the prior summary judgment order (Dkt. No. 87), the court stated that it had already considered and rejected Event Sales's arguments about the existence of an enforceable contract during the disputed period. The damages ruling flowed directly from that determination. The court found that Event Sales was not pointing to a manifest error or presenting new evidence — it was simply disagreeing with a conclusion already reached.
Ruling
Judge Menendez denied Event Sales's request for permission to file a motion for reconsideration. The court noted that the appropriate avenue for Event Sales to pursue its disagreement with the ruling is an appeal to a higher court.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.