Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Streambend Properties II, LLC v. Ivy Tower Minneapolis, LLC

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

January 6, 2017

Streambend Properties II, LLC, and Streambend Properties VIII, LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
Ivy Tower Minneapolis, LLC, Ivy Tower Development, LLC, Moody Group, LLC, Goben Enterprises, LP, Wischermann Holdings, LLC, Jeffrey Laux, Gary Benson, Burnet Realty, LLC, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, LLC, John Doe, Mary Rowe, and XYZ, Corp., Defendants.

          ORDER

          JOAN N. ERICKSEN United States District Judge

         In March 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims and entered judgment. Plaintiffs appealed, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed. Streambend Props. II, LLC v. Ivy Tower Minneapolis, LLC, 781 F.3d 1003 (8th Cir. 2015).

         Approximately one month later, Jerald Hammann, Plaintiffs' owner, submitted Appellants' Motion for Recognition of Assignment of Claims and to Permit Pro Se Representation to the Eighth Circuit. On May 15, 2015, the Eighth Circuit denied the motion.

         Approximately one month later, Hammann submitted a Motion for Substitution of Parties to the Eighth Circuit. On June 17, 2015, the Eighth Circuit declined to file the motion: “Hammann has submitted pro se pleadings to the court. The court denied his motion for recognition of assignment of claims and to permit pro se representation on May 15, 2015. Pursuant to that order, these new pleadings will not be filed.”

          Less than two weeks later, Hammann submitted a Motion for Joinder or Substitution of Parties to this Court. The Court denied the motion.

         At approximately the same time, Hammann filed a motion to direct the clerk to file a petition for a writ of certiorari by him, pro se, as assignee in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the motion in October 2015.

         In the meantime, in August 2015, Hammann filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal in this Court. The Court denied the motion. Hammann appealed the denials of his Motion for Joinder or Substitution of Parties and his Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal. In November 2015, the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The Eighth Circuit also denied Hammann's Motion for Substitution of Parties. In February 2016, Hammann filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. In May 2016, the Supreme Court denied the petition.

         Less than one month later, Plaintiffs filed a motion to direct the clerk to file a petition for a writ of certiorari out of time in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the motion in October 2016.

         Approximately one month later, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment in this Court. They also filed a Motion for Substitution of Parties. For the following reasons, the Court denies the motions.

         Motion for Substitution of Parties

         Plaintiffs moved to substitute Hammann in their place, asserting they transferred their interest in this action to him. The Eighth Circuit and this Court have previously denied Hammann's motions for substitution of parties. The Court denies Plaintiffs' Motion for Substitution of Parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(c) (“If an interest is transferred, the action may be continued by or against the original party unless the court, on motion, orders the transferee to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party.”).

         Motion for Relief from Judgment

         Plaintiffs moved to vacate the judgment that was entered in March 2014. They relied on Rule 60(b)(5) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 60(b) states:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: . . . (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.