BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Kelley
BMO Harris Bank N.A., as Successor to M&I Marshall and Ilsley Bank v. Kelley, in his capacity as the Trustee of BMO Litigation Trust
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- 0:19-cv-01869
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank N.A., Judge Wright denied BMO Harris leave to seek reconsideration of an order denying an interlocutory appeal.
BMO Harris Bank N.A.’s requests for permission to file motions for reconsideration were denied; Douglas A. Kelley, in his capacity as trustee of the BMO Litigation Trust, opposed those requests.
What happened
In Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank N.A., BMO Harris asked the court for permission to file motions asking it to reconsider a March 13, 2020 order that denied permission for an immediate appeal. The requests arose in three related bankruptcy matters.
BMO Harris argued that the March 13 order applied the law incorrectly. Douglas A. Kelley, acting as trustee of the BMO Litigation Trust, opposed the requests. The court said BMO Harris did not present newly discovered evidence and instead repeated earlier arguments or sought to raise new arguments and legal theories.
The court found no serious legal or factual error and concluded that BMO Harris had not shown the required compelling circumstances. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright therefore denied BMO Harris’s requests for permission to file motions for reconsideration.
The detailed version
- BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Kelley · No. 0:19-cv-01869
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- Apr. 8, 2020
Background
The order addresses three related bankruptcy matters: Case Nos. 19-cv-1756, 19-cv-1826, and 19-cv-1869. In each matter, BMO Harris Bank N.A. asked for permission to file a motion for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration asks a court to revisit an earlier ruling. The requests concerned the court’s March 13, 2020 order denying BMO Harris’s request for permission to file an interlocutory appeal, meaning an appeal before the case has fully ended.
Douglas A. Kelley, acting as trustee of the BMO Litigation Trust, opposed BMO Harris’s requests. The opinion identifies Kelley as the plaintiff-appellee in the first matter and as the appellee in the other two matters. BMO Harris is identified as the defendant-appellant in the related matters.
Legal Standard
The District of Minnesota’s Local Rule 7.1(j) requires a party to obtain the court’s permission before filing a motion for reconsideration. Permission may be granted only when the party shows “compelling circumstances.” The court explained that reconsideration has a limited purpose: correcting a manifest error of law or fact, or considering newly discovered evidence. It may not be used simply to repeat arguments already made, introduce evidence or arguments that could have been presented earlier, or raise new legal theories for the first time.
Court’s Analysis
BMO Harris did not claim to have newly discovered evidence. Instead, it argued that the March 13 order misapplied the law. The court concluded that BMO Harris had not identified any manifest error of law. In the court’s view, BMO Harris disagreed with the court’s legal conclusions and repeated arguments previously presented to the bankruptcy court and the district court. The court stated that it had fully considered and addressed those arguments in the March 13 order.
The court also concluded that, to the extent BMO Harris sought to raise new arguments or legal theories, reconsideration was not the proper procedure for doing so. Because BMO Harris had not shown compelling circumstances, the court denied its requests for permission to file motions for reconsideration.
Disposition
The court ordered that BMO Harris Bank N.A.’s requests for leave to file motions for reconsideration in Case Nos. 19-cv-1756, 19-cv-1826, and 19-cv-1869 were DENIED. The order does not state that the requests were denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.