Fredin v. Middlecamp
- Susan Nelson
- 0:17-cv-03058
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Fredin v. Middlecamp, Judge Nelson denied Brock Fredin’s motion to reconsider earlier rulings because he had not obtained required permission.
Brock Fredin’s request for reconsideration was denied, leaving the June 2, 2022 rulings in the three related cases unreconsidered by this order. The defendants named in those cases were the opposing parties.
What happened
In Fredin v. Middlecamp and two related cases, Brock Fredin asked the court to reconsider an earlier order that ruled on seven motions. He filed the request without first asking the court for permission, as required by a local rule.
Fredin argued that the court had incorrectly calculated fees awarded to defense lawyers, applied the wrong standard to his request for Rule 11 sanctions, and issued rulings inconsistent with appeals-court precedent. The defendants argued that the motion should be denied because Fredin had not obtained permission and had not shown new evidence or circumstances requiring reconsideration.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson denied the motion. She ruled that Fredin failed to follow the required procedure and, even if he had followed it, had not shown the compelling circumstances needed for permission to seek reconsideration.
The detailed version
- Fredin v. Middlecamp · No. 0:17-cv-03058
- Susan Nelson
- Sept. 6, 2022
Background
The court considered Brock Fredin’s motion to reconsider filed in three related cases: Case No. 17-cv-03058, captioned Fredin v. Middlecamp; Case No. 18-cv-00466, captioned Fredin v. Miller et al.; and Case No. 20-cv-01929, captioned Fredin v. Kreil. The motion asked the court to reconsider its June 2, 2022 order, which had ruled on seven motions.
Fredin represented himself. He filed the reconsideration motion without first seeking the court’s permission. His arguments were that the court had incorrectly calculated fees awarded to defense counsel, applied the wrong legal standard to his motion for Rule 11 sanctions, and issued rulings inconsistent with Eighth Circuit precedent.
Arguments
The defendants argued that the motion should be denied because Fredin had not obtained the permission required by Local Rule 7.1(j). They also argued that the motion lacked merit because Fredin had not identified newly discovered evidence or compelling circumstances requiring reconsideration. They further argued that the sanctions imposed by the court were justified.
Court’s reasoning
Local Rule 7.1(j) requires a party seeking reconsideration to obtain permission before filing the motion. Permission may be granted only when the party shows compelling circumstances. The court explained that reconsideration is limited to correcting clear legal or factual errors or presenting newly discovered evidence.
The court denied Fredin’s motion because he failed to follow the procedural requirement in Local Rule 7.1(j). The court separately concluded that, even assuming Fredin had followed the rule, he had not shown the compelling circumstances necessary to obtain permission to file a reconsideration motion.
Disposition
The court ordered that Fredin’s Motion to Reconsider in all three related cases is DENIED.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.