Brandon Bryson v. Trans Union, LLC and Transworld Systems, Inc.

D. Minnesota

Brandon Bryson v. Trans Union, LLC and Transworld Systems, Inc.

DecidedOctober 27, 2025

Docket0:25-cv-01717

StatusUnknown

This text of Brandon Bryson v. Trans Union, LLC and Transworld Systems, Inc. (Brandon Bryson v. Trans Union, LLC and Transworld Systems, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brandon Bryson v. Trans Union, LLC and Transworld Systems, Inc., (mnd 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA CIVIL NO.: 25-1717(DSD/DTS)

Brandon Bryson,

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

Trans Union, LLC and Transworld Systems, Inc.,

Defendants.

This matter is before the court upon the motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) by plaintiff Brandon Bryson. Bryson argues he has crafted a third amended complaint that meets applicable pleading standards. A motion to alter or amend judgment, pursuant to Rule 59(e), serves the limited function of “correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (internal quotations omitted). Rule 59(e) does not afford an opportunity to present evidence or legal argument that could have been offered prior to entry of judgment. Freeman v. Busch, 349 F.3d 582, 589 (8th Cir. 2003). Nor can the rule be used to rehash arguments already made and lost. Schoffstall v. Henderson, 223 F.3d 818, 827 (8th Cir. 2000). A motion under Rule 59 “is not intended to routinely give litigants a second bite at the apple, but to afford an opportunity for relief

in extraordinary circumstances.” Dale & Selby Superette & Deli v. U.S. Dep’t of Ag., 838 F. Supp. 1346, 1348 (D. Minn. 1993). The court has “broad discretion in determining whether to open a judgment pursuant to a Rule 59(e) motion.” Roudybush v. Zabel, 813 F.2d 173, 178 (8th Cir. 1987). Bryson does not meet this standard. He has shown no manifest errors of law or newly discovered facts in the court’s dismissal of his case. He essentially seeks a fourth bite at the apple, which the court will not allow. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to alter or amend the judgment [ECF No. 45] is denied.

Dated: October 27, 2025 s/David S. Doty David S. Doty, Judge United States District Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA CIVIL NO.: 25-1717(DSD/DTS)

Brandon Bryson,

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

Trans Union, LLC and Transworld Systems, Inc.,

Defendants.

This matter is before the court upon the motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) by plaintiff Brandon Bryson. Bryson argues he has crafted a third amended complaint that meets applicable pleading standards. A motion to alter or amend judgment, pursuant to Rule 59(e), serves the limited function of “correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (internal quotations omitted). Rule 59(e) does not afford an opportunity to present evidence or legal argument that could have been offered prior to entry of judgment. Freeman v. Busch, 349 F.3d 582, 589 (8th Cir. 2003). Nor can the rule be used to rehash arguments already made and lost. Schoffstall v. Henderson, 223 F.3d 818, 827 (8th Cir. 2000). A motion under Rule 59 “is not intended to routinely give litigants a second bite at the apple, but to afford an opportunity for relief

in extraordinary circumstances.” Dale & Selby Superette & Deli v. U.S. Dep’t of Ag., 838 F. Supp. 1346, 1348 (D. Minn. 1993). The court has “broad discretion in determining whether to open a judgment pursuant to a Rule 59(e) motion.” Roudybush v. Zabel, 813 F.2d 173, 178 (8th Cir. 1987). Bryson does not meet this standard. He has shown no manifest errors of law or newly discovered facts in the court’s dismissal of his case. He essentially seeks a fourth bite at the apple, which the court will not allow. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to alter or amend the judgment [ECF No. 45] is denied.

Dated: October 27, 2025 s/David S. Doty David S. Doty, Judge United States District Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brandon Bryson v. Trans Union, LLC and Transworld Systems, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brandon-bryson-v-trans-union-llc-and-transworld-systems-inc-mnd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack