Case Information
*1 Case 5:22-cv-05027-LLP Document 320 Filed 06/30/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 7767
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION NDN COLLECTIVE, SUNNY RED BEAR,
NICK COTTIER, BRE JACKSON, MARY
BOWMAN, and GEORGE BETTEL YOUN,
5:22-CV-05027 Plaintiffs,
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CERTIFY FOR vs. INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL RETSEL CORPORATION, d/b/a GRAND
GATEWAY HOTEL and d/b/a CHEERS
SPORTS LOUNGE AND CASINO, and
CONNIE UHRE,
Defendants,
and
RETSEL CORPORATION, d/b/a GRAND
GATEWAY HOTEL and d/b/a CHEERS
SPORTS LOUNGE AND CASINO and
NICHOLAS UHRE,
Counterclaimants, vs.
NDN COLLECTIVE,
Counterclaim Defendant.
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Certify this Court's April 17, 2025, and June 6, 2025, Orders for interlocutory appeal. (Doc. 313). The Orders Defendants refer
to are Orders concerning the Article III and prudential standing of Plaintiffs. At this point, the
Court has lost track of how many times Defendants have raised arguments on these issues.
Plaintiffs suggest this would be the ninth, and the Cour t does not doubt that suggestion.
Case 5:22-cv-05027-LLP Document 320 Filed 06/30/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 7768
The Court has expended significa nt judicial resources in comprehensively addressing Defendants' standing arguments in several previous orders. (See Docs. 206; 212; 229; 279; 309).
Additionally, on two separate occasions, Defendants presented their standing arguments to the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for review. The Eighth Circuit rejected botb attempts. See In re
Retsel Corp., Case No. 24-2783 (Denying petition for writ of mandamus seeking to direct this
Court to reverse its standing decision and Denying Defendants' request for rehearing.); NDN
Collective et at v. Retsel Corp. et al, Case No. 24-2788 (Denying Defendants' appeal of this Court's summary judgment orders on the issue of standing). The Court's position concerning the
standing of the remaining Plaintiffs is clear and there is not "substantial ground for difference of
opinion." Thus, the Court finds that the 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) factors have not been met and it will
not further exhaust judicial resources to revisit arguments that have been comprehensively considered and conclusively decided. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Defendants' Motion to Certify, Doc. 313, is DENIED. (\
DATED this :J) - day of June, 2025. BY THE COURT: � L� 6� United States District Judge