Speten et al v. Sharda USA LLC et al

- 1 -
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Nathan Speten et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Sharda USA LLC et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00105
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
AND FINDING AS MOOT MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
[¶ 1] 	THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a Motion for Reconsideration, or in the
alternative, a Motion for Interlocutory Appeal filed by Outsource Logistics, LLC (“Outsource”)
on June 4, 2026. Doc. Nos. 110, 112. Plaintiffs filed a Response on July 2, 2026. Doc. No. 125.
Outsource filed a Reply on July 16, 2026. Doc. No. 136. Outsource also filed a Motion to Stay
Discovery pending resolution of these motions on July 10, 2026. Doc. No. 132. For the reasons set
forth below, Outsource’s Motions are DENIED and the Motion to Stay Discovery is MOOT.
[¶ 2] 	Outsource asks for a reconsideration of the Court’s prior Order denying its Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction for both errors of law and fact. Rule 54(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “any order or other decision, however designated, that
adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties . . .
may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the
parties’ rights and liabilities.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Granting a motion is within the “wide
discretion” of the trial court. SPV-LS, LLC v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., 912 F.3d 1106, 1111
Case 1:25-cv-00105-DLH-CRH Document 139 Filed 07/23/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
(8th Cir. 2019). “A motion for reconsideration ‘serve[s] the limited function of correcting manifest
errors of law or fact . . . .’” Bradley Timberland Res. v. Bradley Lumber Co., 712 F.3d 401, 407
(8th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir.
2006)). Reconsideration is appropriate only when the previous decision was “clearly erroneous
and would work a manifest injustice.” Jordan v. Cent. Transp., LLC, No. 4:17-cv-4011, 2019 WL
885916, at *2 (W.D. Ark. Feb 22, 2019) (quoting Evans v. Contract Callers, Inc., No. 4:10-cv-
02358, 2012 WL 234653, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Jan 25, 2012)). “A motion for reconsideration is not a
vehicle to identify facts or legal arguments that could have been, but were not, raised at the time
the relevant motion was pending.” Julianello v. K-V Pharm. Co., 791 F.3d 915, 923 (8th Cir. 2015).
[¶ 3] 	Outsource argues the Court made several factual errors: (1) it was Sharda, not Outsource,
that decided where to ship products, (2) the Court misunderstood the processes for raw materials
and finished products, (3) Outsource does not package or label finished products, only puts the
product on trucks for shipment, and (4) Outsource disputes evidence on the record concerning the
mislabeled pallets.
[¶ 4] 	The Court will address each point in turn. First, Outsource does not deny it shipped product
to North Dakota, only that it was done at the direction of someone else, which is an argument
already made in previous filings. See Doc. Nos. 76, 102-1, 107. Second, any misunderstanding of
the processes for raw materials and finished product does not change the final analysis of the
Court’s decision. Outsource sent product to be mixed and it also received finished product to be
shipped. Doc. No. 111, pp. 18–19. Third, the Court was referring to a shipping label, not a product
label. And finally, the Court did not find any instance in the previous filings where Outsource
argued the label was not seen through the packaging, and a motion for reconsideration is not the
time to raise arguments that could have previously been raised. Julianello, 791 F.3d at 923.
Case 1:25-cv-00105-DLH-CRH Document 139 Filed 07/23/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
However, even if Outsource previously raised the issue, the evidence is taken in the light most
favorable to the non-movant in a motion to dismiss. Creative Calling Sols., Inc. v. LF Beauty Ltd.,
799 F.3d 975, 979 (8th Cir. 2015) (stating standard for motion). The pleading standard for personal
jurisdiction is “sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference.” Id. The Court finds Plaintiffs’
version of events more than reasonable.
[¶ 5] 	Outsource also argues the Court committed a legal error by finding personal jurisdiction
but these arguments boil down to a reiteration of the arguments made previously. See Doc. No.
108. The Court declines to repeat itself in this Order.
[¶ 6] 	Outsource requests, in the alternative, that the Court approve an interlocutory appeal. An
interlocutory appeal may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) when the “order involves a
controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and
that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the
litigation.” Certification “must be granted sparingly, and the movant bears the heavy burden of
demonstrating that the case is an exceptional one.” White v. Nix, 43 F.3d 374, 376 (8th Cir. 1994).
A case is not materially advanced if only one defendant is affected by the question at hand. ASI,
Inc. v. Aquawood, LLC, No. 19-cv-00763, 2021 WL 396818, at *3 (D. Minn. Feb. 4, 2021). In
ASI, a defendant wanted to appeal the district court’s interpretation of RICO that resulted in
finding personal jurisdiction over that defendant. That court found the litigation’s ultimate
determination would not be materially advanced by reversing one defendant’s basis of personal
jurisdiction because the other seventeen defendants would remain in the case either way. Id. The
appeal would also not avoid a trial or substantially shorten the litigation. Id.
Case 1:25-cv-00105-DLH-CRH Document 139 Filed 07/23/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
[¶ 7] 	While there are fewer defendants in the present case, the conclusion is the same. The
litigation would not be materially advanced by a dismissal of Outsource as a defendant. Therefore,
Outsource has not met its “heavy burden” for an interlocutory appeal.
[¶ 8] 	For the reasons set forth above, Outsource’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 110)
and its alternative Motion for Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. No. 112) are DENIED. Because the
Court resolved the Motion for Reconsideration, Outsource’s Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. No.
132) pending resolution of this motion is MOOT.
[¶ 9] IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED July 23, 2026.
Daniel M. Traynor, District Judge
United States District Court
Case 1:25-cv-00105-DLH-CRH Document 139 Filed 07/23/26 Page 4 of 4