On May 25, 2011 a
Order-Other
was filed
for Contract
in the District Court of Kandiyohi County.
Preview
5/2/2013 3:13 PM Imaged from Kandiyohi County
a =
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF KANDIYOHI EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
File No. 34-CV-11-396
RELCO, LLC,
Plaintiff,
%;
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
A. Kent Keller, Keller Technologies, Inc., MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Roger Allan Ochsner, Cheese Systems, Inc.,
Custom Fabricating and Repair, Inc., and Troy
Gascoigne,
Defendants.
The above entitled matter came before the court based on a letter from Plaintiff
requesting a Motion to Reconsider and the response of Defendants A. Kent Keller and Keller
Technologies, Inc, Dean LeDoux is attorney for the Plaintiff, Michael Feichtinger is attorney for
Defendants Roger Ochsner, Troy Gascoigne, Cheese Systems, Inc. and Custom Fabricating and
Repair, Inc.; and Robert Benner is attorney for Defendants A. Kent Keller and Keller
Technologies, Inc. Based on the record and the arguments made by counsel the court makes the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. There are no compelling circumstances in support of granting Plaintiff's request to file a
Motion to Reconsider.
ORDER
1. Plaintiff's request to file a Motion to Reconsider this Court’s Summary Judgment Order
of October 19, 2012 is DENIED.
2. The terms of the attached memorandum are incorporated herein.
Dated: November 15, 2012
Judgé of District Court
-GURT ADMINISTRATOR
USY 15 2012
Aandtyohi County, Minnesots
FILEDMEMORANDUM
A Request to file a Motion to Reconsider is governed by the Minnesota Rules of General
Practice. Such a request shall be granted “only upon a showing of compelling circumstances.”
Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 115.11. The Advisory Comments to the rule indicate the Court will “rarely”
grant such a request, further stating “They are likely to do so only where intervening legal
developments have occurred (¢.g., enactment of an applicable statute or issuance of a dispositive
court decision) or where the earlier decision is palpably wrong in some respect. Motions for
reconsideration are not opportunities for presentation of facts or arguments available when the
prior motion was considered.” Minn. R. Gen. Prac, 115.11, Advisory Committee Comment -
1997. There has been no enactment of a statute or other change in applicable law, and the
Court's decision is not palpably wrong. Plaintiff has not articulated any compelling
circumstances in support of its request to file a motion to reconsider and the Court sees no reason
to grant Plaintiff's request.
Document Filed Date
November 15, 2012
Case Filing Date
May 25, 2011
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
5/2/2013 3:13 PM Imaged from Kandiyohi County a = STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF KANDIYOHI EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT File No. 34-CV-11-396 RELCO, LLC, Plaintiff, %; ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR A. Kent Keller, Keller Technologies, Inc., MOTION TO RECONSIDER Roger Allan Ochsner, Cheese Systems, Inc., Custom Fabricating and Repair, Inc., and Troy Gascoigne, Defendants. The above entitled matter came before the court based on a letter from Plaintiff requesting a Motion to Reconsider and the response of Defendants A. Kent Keller and Keller Technologies, Inc, Dean LeDoux is attorney for the Plaintiff, Michael Feichtinger is attorney for Defendants Roger Ochsner, Troy Gascoigne, Cheese Systems, Inc. and Custom Fabricating and Repair, Inc.; and Robert Benner is attorney for Defendants A. Kent Keller and Keller Technologies, Inc. Based on the record and the arguments made by counsel the court makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. There are no compelling circumstances in support of granting Plaintiff's request to file a Motion to Reconsider. ORDER 1. Plaintiff's request to file a Motion to Reconsider this Court’s Summary Judgment Order of October 19, 2012 is DENIED. 2. The terms of the attached memorandum are incorporated herein. Dated: November 15, 2012 Judgé of District Court -GURT ADMINISTRATOR USY 15 2012 Aandtyohi County, Minnesots FILEDMEMORANDUM A Request to file a Motion to Reconsider is governed by the Minnesota Rules of General Practice. Such a request shall be granted “only upon a showing of compelling circumstances.” Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 115.11. The Advisory Comments to the rule indicate the Court will “rarely” grant such a request, further stating “They are likely to do so only where intervening legal developments have occurred (¢.g., enactment of an applicable statute or issuance of a dispositive court decision) or where the earlier decision is palpably wrong in some respect. Motions for reconsideration are not opportunities for presentation of facts or arguments available when the prior motion was considered.” Minn. R. Gen. Prac, 115.11, Advisory Committee Comment - 1997. There has been no enactment of a statute or other change in applicable law, and the Court's decision is not palpably wrong. Plaintiff has not articulated any compelling circumstances in support of its request to file a motion to reconsider and the Court sees no reason to grant Plaintiff's request.