Louis E. Bellande and Bonnie L. Bellande v. 3M Company and Arizant Healthcare
Louis E. Bellande and Bonnie L. Bellande v. 3M Company and Arizant Healthcare, Inc.
- Joan Ericksen
- 0:16-cv-02700
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Bellande v. 3M Company, Judge Ericksen denied Bonnie Bellande's motion to reconsider dismissal of her loss of consortium claim because her arguments could have been raised earlier and she showed no clear legal error.
Plaintiffs in the Bair Hugger forced air warming devices MDL, particularly spouses asserting loss of consortium claims, who may be affected by the court's strict application of the rule against raising new arguments after a judgment has been entered.
What happened
In Bellande v. 3M Company and Arizant Healthcare, Inc., Louis and Bonnie Bellande sued the defendants in August 2016 as part of a larger multi-district litigation involving Bair Hugger forced air warming devices. Louis Bellande's claims were dismissed in October 2018, and Bonnie Bellande's loss of consortium claim was dismissed with prejudice in January 2026. After judgment was entered, Bonnie Bellande sought permission to reconsider the dismissal and later filed a formal motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
A Rule 59(e) motion — a formal request asking a court to change a judgment it just entered — serves a narrow purpose: correcting clear legal or factual errors, or presenting newly discovered evidence. It cannot be used to raise arguments or legal theories that were available before the judgment was entered. The court found that all of Bonnie Bellande's arguments were available to her when the defendants moved to dismiss her claims, but she did not raise them at that time.
Judge Joan N. Ericksen denied Bonnie Bellande's Rule 59(e) motion, finding that her arguments were not timely raised and that she failed to show the dismissal of her claims rested on a clear error of law. The court's earlier dismissal of her loss of consortium claim with prejudice therefore stands.
The detailed version
- Louis E. Bellande and Bonnie L. Bellande v. 3M Company and Arizant Healthcare · No. 0:16-cv-02700
- Joan Ericksen
- Feb. 20, 2026
Background
This case is part of a multi-district litigation (MDL) — a consolidated proceeding grouping many related lawsuits before one court — involving Bair Hugger forced air warming devices. Louis Bellande and Bonnie Bellande filed their action in August 2016. The court dismissed Louis Bellande's claims in October 2018. Bonnie Bellande's loss of consortium claim — a claim by a spouse for harm suffered due to injuries to their partner — was dismissed with prejudice in January 2026, and judgment was entered.
Procedural History
Following entry of judgment, Bonnie Bellande sought permission to file a motion to reconsider the order dismissing her loss of consortium claim with prejudice. She argued she met the requirements of Local Rule 7.1(j) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Defendants opposed the request. Bonnie Bellande then also filed a Rule 59(e) motion directly.
Legal Standard
The court treated Bonnie Bellande's request for permission to reconsider as the functional equivalent of a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e), citing DuBose v. Kelly, 187 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 1999), and Auto Servs. Co. v. KPMG, LLP, 537 F.3d 853 (8th Cir. 2008). Under Eighth Circuit precedent, Rule 59(e) motions serve a limited function: correcting manifest (i.e., obvious and clear) errors of law or fact, or presenting newly discovered evidence. They cannot be used to introduce new evidence, raise new legal theories, or advance arguments that could have been made before judgment was entered. The court cited Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284 (8th Cir. 1998), and Concordia Coll. Corp. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 999 F.2d 326 (8th Cir. 1993).
Analysis and Ruling
The court found two independent grounds for denial. First, the arguments Bonnie Bellande raised — both in her request for permission to reconsider and in her Rule 59(e) motion — were available to her before judgment, but she did not present them in response to the defendants' motion to dismiss (MDL ECF No. 3023). Under Rule 59(e), arguments that could have been raised earlier cannot form the basis for post-judgment relief. Second, Bonnie Bellande did not demonstrate that the dismissal of her claims rested on a manifest error of law.
Accordingly, Judge Ericksen denied Bonnie Bellande's Rule 59(e) motion (Docket Nos. 15 & 17). The prior dismissal of her loss of consortium claim with prejudice remains in effect.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.