United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Allan M. Schreier, individually, as beneficiary and Co-Trustee of the John J. Schreier Revocable Intervivos Trust and of the Ann Barbara Schreier Revocable Intervivos Trust, and as Co-Personal Representative of the Ann Barbara Schreier Estate, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
Drealan Kvilhaug Hoefker & Co. P.A., and Hedeen Hughes & Wetering, Defendants/Counter-Claimants.
Katherine Menendez United States Magistrate Judge.
matter is before the Court on Allan M. Schreier's
“Motion Regarding Second Supplemental Complaint.”
(ECF No. 48.) Mr. Schreier's proposed Second Supplemental
Complaint seeks to add claims regarding unpaid or underpaid
rents for a family farm leased by his brother, Carl, and
sister-in-law, Michelle, between the years 2011 and 2014.
(Proposed Second Suppl. Compl., ECF No. 50-2.) For two
reasons discussed below, Mr. Schreier's motion is
the Court has discretion to allow a party, “on just
terms, ” to serve a supplemental pleading that
“set[s] out any transaction, occurrence, or event that
happened after the date of the pleading to be
supplemented.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(d) (emphasis added);
United States v. Vorachek, 563 F.2d 884, 886 (8th
Cir. 1977) (“An amended pleading is designed to include
matters occurring before the filing of the bill but either
overlooked or not known at the time. A supplemental pleading,
however, is designed to cover matters subsequently occurring
but pertaining to the original cause.”) (quoting
Berssenbrugge v. Luce Mfg. Co., 30 F.Supp. 101 (W.D.
Mo. 1939)). Mr. Schreier's proposed supplemental pleading
does not concern events that occurred after the filing of the
operative complaint. This lawsuit began in state court as an
appeal from a conciliation court order denying Mr.
Schreier's malpractice claims. Mr. Schreier added the
unpaid or underpaid farm-rent claim when he filed his Second
Amended Complaint on August 6, 2018. (Second Am. Compl.
¶¶ 46-51, 119-20, ECF No. 1-8.) The events that
form the basis of the farm-rent claim occurred between 2011
and 2014. Mr. Schreier's farm-rent claims are already a
part of this lawsuit, and are clearly based on events that
precede its filing. Allowing him to supplement his complaint
under these circumstances does not further the purpose of
Rule 15(d). See Schneeweis v. Nw. Tech. Coll., No.
CIV.97-1742 (JRT/RLE), 1998 WL 420564, at *13 (D. Minn. June
1, 1998) (“The purpose of Rule 15(d) is to promote, as
complete an adjudication as possible, of an existing dispute
between the parties, which may have evolved since the action
Mr. Schreier's proposed supplemental complaint appears to
be an effort to obtain a different ruling on a discovery
issue that the Court resolved against him rather than an
effort to add either new claims or new factual developments
that are relevant to the existing claims. However, the Court
finds no authority for the idea that the new
“facts” that can form the basis of a supplemental
complaint under Rule 15(d) are case-management rulings issued
by the Court with which a plaintiff disagrees. The Court sees
no reason to grant Mr. Schreier leave to file what is
essentially an unsolicited legal memorandum masquerading as a
Schreier previously sought leave to modify the scheduling
order so that he could call a third expert witness to provide
a market analysis for farm rental rates for the years 2011
through 2014. (Pl.'s Mot. to Amend, ECF No. 27.) This
Court denied his request for a third expert witness because:
(1) “there was no loss to the family as a whole”
based on the assertion that Carl and Michelle failed to pay a
family trust fair market value to rent the farm; and (2) the
addition of another expert was disproportionate to the needs
of the case. (Order (Jan. 29, 2019), ECF No. 38.) Mr.
Schreier objected to that Order, arguing that the first
reason for denying permission to call a third expert relied
on a legally incorrect analysis of trust law. (Pl.'s
Objections, ECF No. 40.) The District Court overruled Mr.
Schreier's objections to the undersigned's Order.
(Order (Feb. 27, 2019), ECF No. 45.) Mr. Schreier's
objections and the numbered paragraphs in the proposed Second
Supplemental Complaint present indistinguishable legal
arguments regarding the application of trust law to the facts
of this case. (Compare Pl.'s Objections
with Proposed Second Suppl. Compl.) Moreover, Mr.
Schreier explicitly states that his purpose of seeking
permission to file another supplemental pleading is to obtain
relief that has previously been denied. (Proposed Second
Suppl. Compl. ¶¶ 31 (stating that plaintiff
“still wishes to use an expert witness regarding the
fair rent”), 38 (arguing that plaintiff “claims
the trust law analysis in the order of January 29, 2019 is
unprecedented and contrary to well-established Minnesota
state trust law”). This is simply not a proper
supplemental pleading as contemplated by Rule 15(d).
IS SO ORDERED.
 To the extent Mr. Schreier's
present motion could be construed as a motion for
reconsideration of the January 29, 2019 ruling denying his
request for a third expert, the Court notes that he did not
obtain permission to file such a motion and, in any event,
the District Court has already rejected Mr. Schreier's
arguments. See D. Minn. LR 7.1(j) (prohibiting the
filing of a motion ...