Fredin v. Miller
- Susan Nelson
- 0:18-cv-00466
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
Fredin v. Miller: Judge Nelson denied Brock Fredin’s motion to reconsider earlier rulings because he neither obtained required permission nor showed compelling circumstances.
The ruling affected Brock Fredin and the defendants in the three related cases: Lindsey Middlecamp, Grace Elizabeth Miller, Catherine Marie Schaefer, and Jamie Kreil.
What happened
In Fredin v. Miller and two related cases, Brock Fredin asked the court to reconsider seven rulings issued on June 2, 2022. He argued that the court miscalculated defense attorneys’ fees, used the wrong standard for his sanctions request, and ruled inconsistently with appellate precedent.
The defendants argued that the motion should be denied because Fredin did not first obtain the court’s permission, did not identify new evidence or compelling circumstances, and had been properly sanctioned.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson denied the motion. She ruled that Fredin violated the local rule requiring permission before filing a reconsideration motion and, even if he had followed that rule, had not shown the compelling circumstances required for permission.
The detailed version
- Fredin v. Miller · No. 0:18-cv-00466
- Susan Nelson
- Sept. 6, 2022
Background
The court considered Brock Fredin’s motion to reconsider rulings in three related cases: 17-cv-03058, 18-cv-00466, and 20-cv-01929. The motion sought review of seven motions addressed in the court’s June 2, 2022 order.
Fredin argued that the court had calculated defense counsel’s fees incorrectly, applied the wrong legal standard to his request for sanctions under Rule 11, and issued rulings inconsistent with Eighth Circuit precedent. He filed the reconsideration motion without first asking the court for permission.
Legal standard and ruling
District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(j) requires a party to obtain permission before filing a motion for reconsideration. Permission is available only upon a showing of “compelling circumstances.” Reconsideration is limited to correcting a clear legal or factual error or considering newly discovered evidence.
The court denied Fredin’s motion for failing to follow Local Rule 7.1(j). The court also ruled that, even if Fredin had followed the rule, he had not shown the compelling circumstances required to obtain permission. The order therefore DENIED the motion to reconsider in all three related cases.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.