Fredin v. Kreil
- Susan Nelson
- 0:20-cv-01929
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Fredin v. Kreil, Judge Nelson denied Fredin’s motion to reconsider earlier rulings because he filed it without required permission and showed no compelling circumstances.
Brock Fredin’s motion to reconsider was denied in three related cases involving defendants Lindsey Middlecamp, Grace Elizabeth Miller, Catherine Marie Schaefer, and Jamie Kreil.
What happened
In Fredin v. Kreil and two related cases, Brock Fredin asked the court to reconsider rulings issued on seven earlier motions. He argued that the court incorrectly calculated defense counsel’s fees, used the wrong standard for 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 did not first obtain the court’s permission, did not identify newly discovered evidence or compelling circumstances, and had been properly sanctioned. The court’s local rule requires permission before a party may file a reconsideration motion.
The court denied the motion because Fredin did not follow that procedural requirement and, even if he had, did not show the compelling circumstances required for permission. Judge Susan Richard Nelson signed the order.
The detailed version
- Fredin v. Kreil · No. 0:20-cv-01929
- Susan Nelson
- Sept. 6, 2022
Background
The order addresses Brock Fredin’s motion to reconsider rulings on seven motions decided in the court’s June 2, 2022 order in three related cases: Case Nos. 17-cv-03058, 18-cv-00466, and 20-cv-01929. Fredin filed the motion without first seeking the court’s permission.
Fredin argued that the court had made errors in calculating fees awarded to defense counsel, applied the wrong legal standard to his motion for sanctions under Rule 11, and issued rulings inconsistent with Eighth Circuit precedent. The defendants argued that the motion should be denied because Fredin had not obtained permission, had not identified newly discovered evidence or compelling circumstances, and had not shown that the sanctions were improper.
Court’s Analysis
District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(j) requires a party to obtain permission before filing a motion for reconsideration. The rule allows permission only upon a showing of “compelling circumstances.” The court explained that reconsideration motions have the limited purpose of correcting clear legal or factual errors or presenting newly discovered evidence.
The court denied Fredin’s motion for failing to comply with the procedural requirement in Local Rule 7.1(j). The court also ruled that, even if Fredin had followed the rule, he had not established the compelling circumstances needed to obtain permission.
Disposition
The court ordered that Fredin’s motion to reconsider was DENIED in all three related cases. The order did not grant permission to file the motion or reconsider the earlier rulings.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.