In re: Polaris Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:18-cv-00939
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In re Polaris Litigation: Judge Wright denied plaintiffs’ request for permission to seek reconsideration of an earlier order.
The plaintiffs’ request for permission to seek reconsideration was denied; defendants opposed the request.
What happened
In re Polaris Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation concerns plaintiffs’ request for permission to file a motion asking the Court to reconsider its March 6, 2019 Order, which had granted part of defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs argued that the earlier order used an incorrect understanding of the constitutional requirement for standing. Defendants opposed the request. The Court explained that plaintiffs needed to show compelling circumstances, such as a clear legal or factual error or newly discovered evidence.
The Court found that plaintiffs had not shown the required circumstances or identified a clear error in the earlier order. Judge Wright therefore denied plaintiffs’ request for permission to file a reconsideration motion.
The detailed version
- In re: Polaris Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation · No. 0:18-cv-00939
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Apr. 2, 2019
Background
The Court considered plaintiffs’ letter request for permission to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s March 6, 2019 Order. That earlier order had granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs argued that the earlier order relied on an erroneous understanding of Article III standing, the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff have a sufficient connection to a dispute to invoke federal-court jurisdiction. Defendants opposed the request.
Legal standard
Local Rule 7.1(j) prohibits a party from filing a motion for reconsideration without the Court’s permission. The party seeking permission must show “compelling circumstances.” The Court explained that reconsideration motions have a limited purpose: correcting a manifest error of law or fact or presenting newly discovered evidence.
Ruling
The Court found that plaintiffs had not established compelling circumstances. It stated that the March 6, 2019 Order had fully considered and addressed the arguments raised in plaintiffs’ letter, and that plaintiffs had not identified a manifest error of law or fact. The Court therefore denied plaintiffs’ request for permission to file a motion for reconsideration. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright signed the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.