Bryson v. Union
- David Doty
- 0:25-cv-01717
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Bryson v. Trans Union, LLC and Transworld Systems, Inc., Judge Doty denied plaintiff Brandon Bryson's motion to alter or amend the judgment, finding he failed to show any clear legal error or newly discovered facts that would justify reopening the previously dismissed case.
Plaintiff Brandon Bryson, who had his case dismissed and whose attempt to reopen that dismissal was denied; also potentially relevant to other litigants who have had cases dismissed and are considering motions to alter or amend judgments in the Eighth Circuit.
What happened
In Bryson v. Trans Union, LLC and Transworld Systems, Inc., plaintiff Brandon Bryson filed a motion asking the court to alter or amend a prior judgment that had dismissed his case. Bryson argued that he had prepared a new, revised complaint that would satisfy the court's pleading requirements. The defendants in the case are Trans Union, LLC and Transworld Systems, Inc.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a court may alter or amend a judgment only in narrow circumstances: to correct a clear legal or factual error, or to account for newly discovered evidence. The rule is not meant to give a losing party a fresh opportunity to re-argue points already decided or to present arguments that could have been made before the judgment was entered. Courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to reopen a judgment under this rule.
Judge Doty denied Bryson's motion, concluding that Bryson had not identified any clear legal error or newly discovered facts in the court's earlier dismissal. The court noted that Bryson was effectively seeking a fourth opportunity to correct his complaint, which the court found was not an appropriate use of the rule. The motion was denied.
The detailed version
In this civil matter, Civil No. 25-1717 (DSD/DTS), plaintiff Brandon Bryson moved to alter or amend a prior judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a court to revisit a final judgment under limited circumstances. The defendants are Trans Union, LLC and Transworld Systems, Inc.
The court, per Judge David S. Doty of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, explained the narrow legal standard governing Rule 59(e) motions. Such a motion serves only to correct 'manifest errors of law or fact' or to present newly discovered evidence. Citing Eighth Circuit precedent, the court emphasized that Rule 59(e) cannot be used to introduce evidence or arguments that could have been raised before judgment was entered, nor can it be used to rehash arguments already made and rejected. The motion is intended only for 'extraordinary circumstances,' not as a routine second chance for litigants.
Bryson's stated basis for the motion was that he had drafted a third amended complaint (which would have been his fourth attempt at pleading) that he believed met the applicable pleading standards. The court found this insufficient. Bryson identified no manifest error of law or newly discovered facts in the court's prior dismissal. The court characterized the motion as seeking 'a fourth bite at the apple,' which it declined to permit.
Judge Doty denied the motion to alter or amend the judgment (docket entry ECF No. 45). The order was entered on October 27, 2025. The opinion does not describe the underlying substantive claims in detail, only that the case had been previously dismissed and that prior attempts to amend the complaint had also been unsuccessful.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.