United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Jeffrey R. Anderson, Esq., Jeff Anderson & Associates,
P.A., Saint Paul, MN, on behalf of Plaintiffs.
P. Aggergaard, Esq., Bassford Remele, P.A., Minneapolis, MN,
on behalf of Defendant.
MONTGOMERY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
November 23, 2016, Defendant Shattuck-St. Mary's School
(“Shattuck”) filed a letter [Docket No.
requesting leave to file a motion to reconsider this
Court's November 4, 2016 Order [Docket No. 102] granting
Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Cases for Trial [Docket
No. 93]. Shattuck also requests the Court issue an order
certifying the consolidation issue for interlocutory appeal
pursual to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The Court denies both
reconsideration, the Local Rules for the District of
Minnesota state that a motion to reconsider can only be filed
after obtaining the Court's permission and only
“upon a showing of compelling circumstances.”
L.R. 7.1(j). When evaluating such requests, the Court
maintains broad discretion. Hagerman v. Yukon Energy
Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 413 (8th Cir. 1988). “Motions
for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence. . . . Nor should a motion for reconsideration serve
as the occasion to tender new legal theories for the first
time.” Id. at 414 (quoting Rothwell Cotton
Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir.
contends that the Court's citations to criminal cases
demonstrates the lack of Eighth Circuit authority on
consolidation, and that it should be permitted an opportunity
to distinguish the cited authority. Distinguishing the
criminal cases is unnecessary because they were not cited for
their factual similarity to the case at bar, but rather to
support the conclusion that consolidation is appropriate.
Defense of individuals where their liberty is at stake raises
a higher threshold for consolidation than a corporation faces
as a single defendant requesting several trials. Thus, the
Court supported its decision to consolidate the cases for a
single trial by comparison to multi-defendant criminal cases.
Here, any risk of prejudice in these civil cases does not
offset the convenience and economy benefits consolidation
request for an interlocutory appeal is also denied. The Court
has wide discretion in ordering these civil cases to be
consolidated for trial. See U.S. E.P.A. v. City of Green
Forest, Ark., 921 F.2d 1394, 1402 (8th Cir. 1990)
(noting that denial of motion to consolidate “should
not be disturbed unless it is determined that the court
clearly abused its discretion”). “It has . . .
long been the policy of the courts to discourage piece-meal
appeals because most often such appeals result in additional
burdens on both the court and the litigants. Permission to
allow interlocutory appeals should thus be granted sparingly
and with discrimination. White v. Nix, 43 F.3d 374,
376 (8th Cir. 1994) (citing Control Data Corp. v.
Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 421 F.2d 323, 325 (8th Cir.
1970)). It is within the trial court's discretion to
grant or deny a motion for interlocutory appeal. Id.
question of consolidation does not warrant further
protraction of this lawsuit, where the events at issue
occurred over a decade ago. This is not one of those
“extraordinary cases” where an interlocutory
appeal is warranted. See U.S. Rubber Co. v. Wright,
359 F.2d 784, 785 (9th Cir. 1966) (per curiam) (citing
legislative history of § 1292(b) as indicative of
Congress' intention that certifying an order for
interlocutory appeal only be used in “extraordinary
on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Shattuck-St.
Mary's School's Letter Request for Permission to File
Motion to Reconsider [Case No. 15-1151 Docket No. 109; Case
No. 15-1154 Docket No. 112; Case No. 15-1155 Docket No. 101]
 Docket citations are to the docket in
Doe YZ v. Shattuck-St. Mary's School, No.