Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. Bradshaw Construction Corp.

Background

The court considered a September 12, 2022 letter from Bradshaw Construction Corporation and Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America. The defendants asked for permission to file a motion for reconsideration of the court’s August 22, 2022 order, which had granted in part and denied in part their motion to strike the jury demand. Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. opposed the request.

Legal standard

District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(j) requires a party to obtain the court’s permission before filing a motion for reconsideration. Permission is available only upon a showing of “compelling circumstances.” The court explained that reconsideration has a limited purpose: correcting a clear legal or factual error or addressing newly discovered evidence. It may not be used to repeat arguments previously made, present evidence or arguments that could have been offered earlier, or introduce new legal theories for the first time.

Court’s analysis

The defendants did not claim to have newly discovered evidence. Instead, they argued that the earlier order contained legal errors. The court concluded that the defendants were merely repeating arguments they had already made or advancing arguments the court had previously rejected. Because those arguments did not satisfy the limited purpose of reconsideration, the defendants had not shown the compelling circumstances required by Local Rule 7.1(j).

Disposition

The court denied Bradshaw Construction Corporation and Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America’s request for leave to file a motion to reconsider. The order did not itself decide the merits of the earlier jury-demand dispute.