Opinion
Civil No. 02-953 (JRT/FLN)
April 15, 2003
Thomas P. Malone and Edward P. Sheu, BARNA, GUZY STEFFEN, Coon Rapids, MN, for plaintiffs.
Paul D. Reuvers, IVERSON REUVERS, Bloomington, MN, for defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On March 18, 2003, this Court granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(g), plaintiffs request leave to file a motion to reconsider the dismissal. The Court denies this request for the reasons discussed below. For purposes of potential further action in this dispute, however, the Court will take this opportunity to clarify one statement in the March 18, 2003 Order.
DISCUSSION
A motion to reconsider under Local Rule 7.1(g) is the "functional equivalent" of a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. DuBose v. Kelly, 187 F.3d 999, 1002 (8th Cir. 1999). Requests to file such motions are granted "only upon a showing of compelling circumstances." D. Minn. LR 7.1(g); Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Services, Inc., 134 F. Supp.2d 1049, 1060 (D. Minn. 2001). A motion to reconsider should be employed only to "afford an opportunity for relief in extraordinary circumstances." Dale Selby Superette Deli v. United States Dept. of Agric., 838 F. Supp. 1346, 1348 (D.Minn. 1993).
Plaintiffs argue that the Court should reconsider its decision to grant summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' equal protection claims. Plaintiffs, however, still cannot point to a similarly situated entity, or to any type of new commercial entity, that was connected to the sewer system around the time plaintiffs' request was denied. The lack of a similarly situated entity precludes an equal protection claim.
Plaintiffs also take issue with the dismissal of their substantive due process claims. Plaintiffs' complaints center on the Court's factual assertion regarding expert opinions about the impact of plaintiffs' proposed restaurant on the sewer system.
Throughout the March 18, 2003 Opinion and Order, the Court refers to expert opinions. The expert opinions to which the Court is referring are found at exhibits 6 and 18 to the affidavit of Paul D. Reuvers. The first, the opinion of Brian Freeberg, a consulting engineer states, "there should be real concern with how much wastewater goes to the drainfield as the life of the drainfield will be effected and at this time there is no ready means of expanding or reconstructioning." (Reuvers Aff. at exhibit 6.) The other, the opinion of consulting engineer Robert W. Whimyer concludes, "[t]hese conclusions support the sewer and water district decision to not allow connection of a new commercial facility. In addition, they suggest system treatment and dispersal capability may be insufficient for existing uses." (Id. exhibit 18.)
At page 14 of the March 18, 2003 Order, the Court states "it is undisputed that two independent experts opined that plaintiffs' proposed restaurant would overburden the sewer system." In context, the Court's statement could be construed to insinuate that the two opinions discussed above were before the Water and Sewer Board when the Board determined to deny the hookup. This is incorrect. The Court clarifies that only the first opinion was considered by the Sewer and Water Commission during its September 10, 2000 meeting. Reuvers aff. at exhibit 9. The second opinion was generated at the request of the Board of Commissioners, and was relied on when the County Board of Commissioner upheld the Sewer and Water Commission's denial. This clarification does not impact the Court's determination that the Water and Sewer Commissioners had a reasonable basis for the denial of the hookup, namely the concern expressed at the September 10, 2000 meeting of "preventing a failed [sewer] system." Reuvers aff. exhibit 9 at 3.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, all the records, files, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's request to file a motion to reconsider [Docket No. 40] is DENIED.