Wingo v. 3M Company

Background

The order addresses motions filed in four related cases brought by John Wingo, Titus Kargbo, Desiree Holler, and Vaughn Wingo against 3M Company. The plaintiffs’ former counsel had asked to withdraw, stating that professional considerations required withdrawal and that the attorney’s relationship with some plaintiffs had broken down. The court granted that request and set deadlines, including a November 14, 2023 hearing on 3M’s pending motion to compel.

The court’s order granting counsel’s withdrawal directed former counsel to serve the order on the plaintiffs by mail and email. Former counsel later filed an affidavit stating that he had done so and that, when possible, he used delivery confirmation. The court also mailed an order denying the plaintiffs’ request to stay the cases; that order referred to the upcoming motion hearing. No plaintiff filed a response to 3M’s motion to compel, and no plaintiff appeared at the scheduled hearing. The court granted the motion to compel, with exceptions and reservations that the order says are not relevant here.

Motions for reconsideration

The plaintiffs then filed motions asking the court to reconsider its bench ruling on the motion to compel. They argued that they had not known a hearing would occur and said they would have appeared and argued against the motion if they had known.

Court’s reasoning

The court first held that the motions were not properly before it. District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(j) requires a party to obtain the court’s permission before filing a motion for reconsideration. To request permission, a party must file a letter of no more than two pages. The plaintiffs instead filed documents titled as motions for reconsideration, each with a case caption, and the filings were three pages long without counting signature pages. The court therefore denied the motions for failure to follow the local rules.

The court then explained that it would deny the requests even if it treated the filings as letters seeking permission to file motions for reconsideration. Under Local Rule 7.1(j), permission requires compelling circumstances. The court found that the plaintiffs had notice of the hearing date through their former counsel on September 25, through the written withdrawal order mailed and emailed after counsel withdrew, and through the court’s later order mailed to the addresses supplied by their former attorney. The court was not convinced that the plaintiffs lacked notice and concluded that they had not shown compelling circumstances.

Disposition

The court ordered that the moving plaintiffs’ motions to reconsider were DENIED. The opinion does not state that the underlying cases were dismissed or otherwise finally resolved.