Jack & Joe's Franchising, Inc. et al v. Bernardin et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JACK 	& 	JOE’S 	FRANCHISING, 	INC.
d/b/a 	SQUEEGEE 	SQUAD; 	JACK 	&
JOE’S MANAGMENT COMPANY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
EB WINDOW CLEANING LLC; ERIC
BERNADIN,
Defendants.
No. 25-cv-2776 (KMM/SGE)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Eric Bernadin’s Motion to Reconsider
the Order granting Plaintiffs Jack & Joe’s Franchising, Inc. and Jack & Joe’s Management
Company’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and denying Mr. Bernadin’s Motion to
Compel Arbitration. (Dkt. 50.) Plaintiffs filed a letter arguing that Mr. Bernadin had not
shown “compelling circumstances” to justify the filing of this Motion. (Dkt. 57 (quoting
D. Minn. LR 7.1(j)).) For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is denied.
In this District, a party must obtain the Court’s permission before filing a motion to
reconsider. D. Minn. LR 7.1(j). Mr. Bernadin has not complied with this rule, which alone
is a basis for denying his Motion. See Ferguson v. Michael Foods, Inc., 74 F.Supp.2d 862,
876 (D. Minn. 1999) (“Plaintiff [d]id not seek leave of Court to make a Motion to
Reconsider the decision denying the Motion to Amend, and the Motion is denied for this
procedural reason.”); cf. Lee v. United States, No. 25-cv-3554 (JRT/EMB), 2026 WL
474887, at *1 (D. Minn. Feb. 19, 2026) (stating that a party’s “failure to comply with the
CASE 0:25-cv-02776-KMM-SGE Doc. 59 Filed 04/17/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Local Rules is a sufficient, independent basis to deny his Motion”).
Aside from this procedural issue, Mr. Bernadin has not shown “compelling
circumstances” that warrant leave to file a motion for reconsideration. See D. Minn. LR
7.1(j). “Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of
law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp.,
839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted). And such motions “cannot be
employed to repeat arguments previously made, introduce evidence or arguments that
could have been made earlier or tender new legal theories for the first time.” Eng’g &
Constr. Innovations, Inc. v. Bradshaw Constr. Corp., No. 20-cv-0808 (WMW/TNL), 2022
WL 5249648, at *1 (D. Minn. Oct. 6, 2022) (citing id.). Mr. Bernadin explains that as a
pro se litigant, he “did not fully understand” he was required to respond to Plaintiffs’
Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and only now disputes certain factual allegations. (Dkt.
50 at 1.) But Mr. Bernadin was previously ordered to “file a response to Plaintiffs’ Motion”
(Dkt. 38) and yet failed to do so. Because he improperly presents evidence or arguments
“that could have been made earlier,” Eng’g & Constr. Innovations, Inc., 2022 WL
5249648, at *1, the Court concludes that permission for leave to file a motion to reconsider
is not warranted. However, this ruling does not prevent Mr. Bernadin from filing a motion
to have the preliminary injunction lifted in the future based on a showing of changed
circumstances.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant Eric
Bernadin’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 50) is DENIED.
CASE 0:25-cv-02776-KMM-SGE Doc. 59 Filed 04/17/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Date: April 17, 2026 	s/Katherine M. Menendez
Katherine M. Menendez
United States District Judge
CASE 0:25-cv-02776-KMM-SGE Doc. 59 Filed 04/17/26 Page 3 of 3