Bellande et al v. 3M Company et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
In re: BAIR HUGGER FORCED AIR 	MDL No. 15-2666 (JNE/DTS)
WARMING DEVICES PRODUCTS 	ORDER
LIABILITY LITIGATION
This Document Relates to:
Case No. 16-cv-2700 (Louis E. Bellande and Bonnie L. Bellande v. 3M Company and
Arizant Healthcare, Inc.)
Louis Bellande and Bonnie Bellande brought this action in August 2016. The
Court dismissed his claims in October 2018 and her claims in January 2026. After entry
of judgment, Bonnie Bellande sought “permission to file a motion to reconsider the . . .
Order . . . dismissing her loss of consortium claim with prejudice.” She asserted that “she
both provides compelling circumstances required by Local Rule 7.1(j) and can meet the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).” Defendants opposed her request.
Bonnie Bellande subsequently filed a Rule 59(e) motion.
Bonnie Bellande’s request for permission to file a motion to reconsider is “the
functional equivalent of a motion to alter or amend the judgment under” Rule 59(e).
DuBose v. Kelly, 187 F.3d 999, 1002 (8th Cir. 1999); see Auto Servs. Co. v. KPMG, LLP,
537 F.3d 853, 855–57 (8th Cir. 2008). “Rule 59(e) motions serve a limited function of
correcting ‘“manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”’
Such motions cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or
raise arguments which could have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment.”
Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d
1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted); see Concordia Coll. Corp. v. W.R. Grace &
CASE 0:16-cv-02700-JNE-DTS Doc. 22 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Co., 999 F.2d 326, 330 (8th Cir. 1993). The arguments that Bonnie Bellande advanced in
her request for permission to file a motion to reconsider and in her Rule 59(e) motion
were available to her, but they were not made in response to Defendants’ motion to
dismiss. MDL ECF No. 3023. In addition, she has not demonstrated that dismissal of
her claims is based on a manifest error of law. Accordingly, the Court denies Bonnie
Bellande’s Rule 59(e) motion.
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated
above, IT IS ORDERED THAT Bonnie Bellande’s Rule 59(e) motion [Docket Nos. 15 &
17] is DENIED.
Dated: February 20, 2026
s/Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge
CASE 0:16-cv-02700-JNE-DTS Doc. 22 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 2