Munro v. Lucy Activewear, Inc

Background

The court held a telephone conference on August 22, 2018, to discuss managing the case after the Eighth Circuit’s remand. The appeals court largely affirmed the district court’s dismissal of certain claims and denial of plaintiffs’ request to amend the complaint. It reversed one part of the ruling, concluding that the district court had improperly denied leave to amend a trademark-infringement claim concerning the names of certain light installations.

Plaintiffs asked the court to docket their proposed amended complaint and allow the case to proceed. The proposed complaint also included claims that were no longer part of the case under the Eighth Circuit’s ruling and claims against Mono Advertising LLC, which had not been served. Defendants argued that plaintiffs should first file a new motion to amend that removed the dismissed claims.

Request for Reconsideration

The court denied defendants’ oral request to require a revised amended complaint. Defendants then sought permission under District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(j) to file a motion for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration asks a court to correct a serious legal or factual error or consider newly discovered evidence. Permission requires compelling circumstances.

The court held that defendants identified no legal or factual error and relied on no newly discovered evidence. Their request was instead a disagreement with the court’s case-management decision, which was not enough to justify reconsideration.

The court also addressed the substance of defendants’ concerns. It found no authority requiring plaintiffs to prepare a new version of the amended complaint that removed claims already dismissed. Docketing the proposed complaint would not reinstate those claims, and defendants would be litigating with a complaint from which certain counts had already been dismissed. The court also explained that concerns about whether the proposed complaint stated a claim against Mono Advertising did not make the court’s case-management ruling erroneous; after service, Mono could pursue available legal remedies.

Ruling

The court ordered the Clerk’s Office to create a new docket entry for the proposed amended complaint at ECF No. 51-1 and deemed that complaint the operative pleading in the case. It denied defendants’ letter request for permission to file a motion for reconsideration of the court’s oral ruling. Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez did not reinstate the claims that had previously been dismissed.