United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Streambend Properties II, LLC, and Streambend Properties VIII, LLC, Plaintiffs,
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.
N. ERICKSEN United States District Judge
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).
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.
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.”
than two weeks later, Hammann submitted a Motion for Joinder
or Substitution of Parties to this Court. The Court denied
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.
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
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
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.
for Substitution of Parties
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
for Relief from Judgment
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 ...