Hansmeier v. Seaver
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:20-cv-00219
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Hansmeier v. Seaver, Judge Wright denied Hansmeier’s rehearing motion because it merely reargued issues already rejected.
Paul Hansmeier, whose motion for rehearing was denied; the order also leaves in place the court’s earlier affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of his claim.
What happened
In Hansmeier v. Seaver, Paul Hansmeier asked the district court to reconsider its earlier decision affirming dismissal of his breach-of-contract claim against bankruptcy trustee Randall Seaver. The bankruptcy court had dismissed the claim for failure to state a claim.
Hansmeier argued that Seaver’s impossibility defense could not be resolved from the complaint because Seaver allegedly could have avoided breaching the contract. The court said Hansmeier had already made these arguments and had not shown that the court overlooked a relevant legal rule or important fact.
Judge Wright denied Hansmeier’s motion for rehearing. The court concluded that the motion simply reargued his case and did not meet the strict requirements for rehearing.
The detailed version
- Hansmeier v. Seaver · No. 0:20-cv-00219
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Oct. 7, 2020
Background
Paul Hansmeier appealed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal with prejudice of his breach-of-contract claim against Randall Seaver, Chapter 7 Trustee. The bankruptcy court dismissed the claim for failure to state a claim. On July 28, 2020, this Court affirmed that decision. Hansmeier then moved for rehearing under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8022.
Rehearing standard
Because the district court was reviewing the bankruptcy court’s factual findings and legal conclusions, it acted as an appellate court. Rule 8022 was the governing procedure for seeking rehearing. The rule requires the moving party to identify specifically each legal or factual point that the court overlooked or misunderstood. The court explained that rehearing is not an opportunity to reargue the case; it is intended to direct the court to a material matter that, if considered, likely would have changed the result.
Hansmeier’s arguments
Hansmeier argued that Seaver’s impossibility defense could not be established from the face of the adversary complaint. He contended that Seaver had an opportunity to avoid breaching the contract, that Seaver’s failure to use that opportunity defeated the impossibility defense, and that the issue was fact-intensive and unsuitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss.
The court determined that Hansmeier had already presented these arguments in his appeal and that the court had rejected them in its July 28, 2020 Order. Hansmeier did not identify any relevant legal authority that the court had overlooked or misunderstood, and he did not identify any material fact that the court had overlooked or misunderstood. To the extent he raised new facts or arguments, he did not explain why they had been unavailable during his appeal. The court also described his argument about Seaver’s ability to avoid compliance with the Amended Restitution Order as speculative and meritless.
Disposition
The court held that Hansmeier’s motion merely reargued his case and that he had not shown that rehearing was warranted. The order therefore states: Hansmeier’s motion for a rehearing, Docket 19, is DENIED.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.