Sorenson v. State of Minnesota

Background

The court received a March 7, 2022 voicemail from Cherrity Honesty-Alexis Meranelli. She said she had received the court’s March 3 order denying her request for permission to file an early motion for summary judgment. She also said she had received the defendants’ response and wanted to file a reply and seek reconsideration of the March 3 order.

Reconsideration procedure

The court explained that Local Rule 7.1(j) prohibits a party from filing a motion to reconsider without first obtaining the court’s permission. To request permission, a party must show compelling circumstances and submit and serve a letter of no more than two pages. The court identified examples of compelling circumstances as the need to correct a serious legal or factual error or to present newly discovered evidence. It also explained that reconsideration cannot be used simply to reargue the underlying motion.

The court said Meranelli could submit a letter requesting permission to seek reconsideration. It did not decide whether such a request would succeed. The court stated, however, that a request based only on her lack of an opportunity to file a reply was unlikely to succeed because her request for permission to file an early dispositive motion was a nondispositive motion. Under Local Rule 7.1(3), a reply memorandum supporting a nondispositive motion is not allowed without the court’s prior permission.

Other directions and disposition

The order did not grant or deny permission to file a reconsideration motion. It stated that, if Meranelli filed a qualifying letter, the defendants had to file any opposing letter within three business days after the Clerk’s Office docketed her letter. The court also directed her to submit future requests in writing and cautioned against ex parte communications—communications with the court that opposing counsel does not have an opportunity to see.

Judge Katherine Menendez entered the order on March 7, 2022.