Event Sales, Inc. v. TJX Companies, Inc. The
Event Sales, Inc. v. The TJX Companies, Inc.; Federal Express Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; and FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:23-cv-03444
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Event Sales, Inc. v. The TJX Companies, Inc., Judge Menendez denied Event Sales's request to file a motion asking the court to reconsider its earlier ruling on damages in TJX's breach-of-contract counterclaim, finding that Event Sales was simply trying to re-argue issues the court had already decided.
Event Sales, Inc., which lost its attempt to have the court revisit a damages ruling on TJX's breach-of-contract counterclaim and is now directed to pursue an appeal if it wishes to challenge the ruling further.
What happened
In Event Sales, Inc. v. The TJX Companies, Inc., Event Sales, Inc. sued TJX Companies, Inc. and two FedEx entities in federal court in Minnesota. TJX filed a counterclaim against Event Sales for breach of contract, and the court previously granted summary judgment (a ruling in TJX's favor based on undisputed facts, without a trial) on that counterclaim, including a determination of how much money Event Sales owed TJX in damages.
Event Sales then asked the court for permission to file a motion for reconsideration — a formal request to revisit and change the earlier ruling. Under the court's local rules, a party must show 'compelling circumstances' to even be allowed to file such a motion. Event Sales argued that the court's damages ruling rested on a disputed factual issue that the court had not properly addressed, and that this amounted to an error caused by oversight or omission. TJX opposed the request, arguing the court had in fact considered and rejected Event Sales's arguments.
Judge Menendez denied Event Sales's request for permission to file a motion for reconsideration. The court explained that it had not overlooked the issue Event Sales raised; rather, it had already considered and rejected Event Sales's arguments about whether an enforceable contract existed between the parties during the relevant period (December 1, 2022 through March 30, 2023), and the damages award reflected that finding. Because Event Sales was simply disagreeing with the court's ruling rather than identifying a clear legal or factual error or presenting new evidence, the court found no compelling circumstances to allow reconsideration, and directed that an appeal would be the appropriate next step.
The detailed version
This order arises from Event Sales, Inc. v. The TJX Companies, Inc.; Federal Express Corporation; and FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., No. 23-cv-3444, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, decided by Judge Katherine Menendez on October 8, 2025.
Background
Event Sales, Inc. is the plaintiff and counter-defendant; The TJX Companies, Inc. and two FedEx entities are defendants and counter-plaintiffs. The court had previously issued an order granting summary judgment (Dkt. No. 87) in favor of TJX on its breach-of-contract counterclaim against Event Sales, including a ruling on the amount of damages owed. The specific contract period at issue was December 1, 2022 through March 30, 2023.
The Request at Issue
Event Sales filed a letter (Dkt. No. 99) seeking the court's permission — required under District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(j) before a formal motion for reconsideration may be filed — to challenge the court's damages determination. Event Sales contended that the damages ruling rested on a disputed factual issue that was not substantively addressed in the court's summary judgment order, characterizing this as an 'error arising from oversight or omission.' TJX opposed the request by letter (Dkt. No. 101), arguing the court had already considered and rejected Event Sales's arguments.
Legal Standard
Under D. Minn. Local Rule 7.1(j), a party must demonstrate 'compelling circumstances' to obtain permission to file a motion for reconsideration. The court cited Eighth Circuit precedent establishing that reconsideration serves the narrow purpose of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or presenting newly discovered evidence. See Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988). Reconsideration is not an appropriate vehicle to relitigate previously decided issues. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 642 F. Supp. 2d 902, 909–10 (D. Minn. 2009).
Ruling
Judge Menendez denied Event Sales's request. The court found that it had not overlooked the disputed factual issue identified by Event Sales; rather, the court had considered and rejected Event Sales's arguments about the existence of an enforceable contract during the relevant period, and the damages ruling reflected that determination. The court concluded that Event Sales was attempting to reargue matters already decided and was expressing disagreement with the court's ruling — not identifying a manifest error of law or fact or presenting new evidence. The court noted that the proper forum for Event Sales's argument is an appeal, not a motion for reconsideration. The request for permission to file a motion to reconsider was DENIED.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.