Schreier v. Drealan Kvilhaug Hoefker & Co. P.A.

Background

Allan M. Schreier, individually and in several trust- and estate-related capacities, sued Drealan Kvilhaug Hoefker & Co. P.A. and Hedeen Hughes & Wetering. The court considered Schreier’s July 1, 2019 letter requesting permission to file a motion for reconsideration. The request concerned two earlier orders: a January 29, 2019 order denying his motion to modify the scheduling order and an April 30, 2019 order denying his motion to file a second supplemental complaint.

The January order denied Schreier’s request to call a third expert witness to provide a market analysis of farm rental rates from 2011 through 2014. The court had reasoned that the proposed testimony was irrelevant because Schreier had settled intra-family disputes concerning allegedly underpaid farm rents, meaning there was no loss to the family as a whole. The April order denied permission to file a second supplemental complaint, in part because Schreier again sought a different ruling concerning the third expert witness.

Arguments and legal standard

Schreier argued that the earlier rulings were contrary to fundamental Minnesota trust-law principles. He also argued that the rulings had dismissed his $2 million lost-rent claim. Under District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(j), a party must show “compelling circumstances” to obtain permission to file a motion for reconsideration. The court described that standard as requiring a need to correct a clear legal or factual error or to consider newly discovered evidence. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy.

Court’s reasoning

The court found that Schreier had not shown compelling circumstances. First, he presented no newly discovered evidence. Second, although he strongly disagreed with part of the court’s reasoning, he did not show a need to correct a clear legal or factual error. The court also noted that Schreier had already made his arguments about Minnesota trust law more than once and that the District Court had twice overruled his objections.

The court rejected Schreier’s claim that the earlier case-management rulings had dismissed his lost-rents claim. It explained that those rulings were not dispositive, meaning they did not finally decide or end that claim. The claim remained in the operative pleadings, and nothing in the January or April orders prevented Schreier from fully presenting arguments against the defendants’ anticipated motions for summary judgment.

Disposition

Judge Menendez ordered that Schreier’s July 1 letter requesting permission to file a motion for reconsideration was DENIED. The opinion does not state that the lost-rents claim was dismissed; instead, it says that the claim remained part of the case.