EN BANC CALENDAR
Before the Minnesota Supreme Court
May
2014
SUMMARY
OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court
Commissioner’s Office
Monday, May 5,
2014
Supreme Court
Courtroom, State Capitol
Sharyn Hartwig,
Relator, vs. Traverse Care Center and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental
Trust, Respondents – Case No. A14-0090:
Relator Gary Ekdahl suffered a
work-related injury that led to his retirement from teaching at ISD #203. Ekdahl applied for and is receiving a
retirement annuity from the state Teachers Retirement Association. The compensation judge granted Ekdahl’s
petition for wage loss benefits and denied the employer’s request to offset the
payments by the amount of Ekdahl’s TRA retirement annuity. The workers’ compensation court of appeals
reversed, ruling that Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4 (2013), required the requested
offset.
Relator Sharyn Hartwig was injured
in the course of her employment at the Traverse Care Center. Hartwig and the employer stipulated that she
was permanently and totally disabled.
Hartwig is receiving a retirement annuity from the Public Employees
Retirement Association. The compensation
judge granted the employer’s request to offset the disability payments by the
amount of Hartwig’s PERA retirement annuity.
The worker’s compensation court of appeals affirmed.
On appeal to the supreme court, the
cases were consolidated for oral argument.
The following issues are presented: (1) whether Minn. Stat. § 176.101,
subd. 4, requires that disability payments be offset by state and local
government retirement benefits; and (2) whether such offsets would constitute constitutional
violations of the right to equal protection and due process of law. (Worker’s Compensation Court of Appeals)
Tuesday, May 6,
2014
Supreme Court
Courtroom, State Capitol
Patrick
Finn, et al., Appellants, vs. Alliance Bank, Respondent, Home Federal Bank,
Appellant, KleinBank, Appellant, Merchants Bank, M&I Marshall & Ilsley
Bank, Appellant, American Bank of St. Paul, et al., Defendants – Case Nos.
A12-1930, A12-2092:
First United Funding, LLC was the vehicle for a now-collapsed Ponzi scheme
involving the sale of loan participations to banks. Patrick Finn and Lighthouse Management Group,
Inc., acting as a court-appointed receiver (“the Receiver”), brought a civil
action against, among others Alliance Bank, Home Federal Bank, KleinBank,
Merchants Bank, and M&I Marshall & Islsley Bank. The suits alleged that the banks were all
“net winners” of the Ponzi scheme, and sought to recover proceeds of the scheme
as fraudulent transfers under the Minnesota Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Minn.
Stat. §§ 513.41-.51 (2012) (“MUFTA”), under theories of both actual and
constructive fraud. The district court
dismissed some of the claims against Alliance Bank, and all of the claims
against the remaining banks, as time-barred, but entered summary judgment
against Alliance Bank on the remaining claims based on a presumption that for
purposes of fraudulent transfer liability, transfers from a Ponzi scheme are
actually fraudulent.
The court of appeals consolidated the
separate appeals of Alliance Bank and the Receiver. The court of appeals held that actual-fraud
claims under MUFTA are subject to the limitations period for actions seeking
“relief on the ground of fraud” set forth in Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(6)
(2012), which states that “the cause of action shall not be deemed to have
accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting
the fraud.” It further held that constructive-fraud
claims under MUFTA are subject to the limitations period set forth for actions
“upon a liability created by statute” set forth in Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd.
1(2) (2012), which has no corresponding discovery provision. Additionally, the court of appeals in large
part rejected the “Ponzi scheme presumption.”
Accordingly, it affirmed the dismissal of the constructive fraud claims,
reversed the dismissal of the actual-fraud claims and remanded for trial,
reversed the grant of summary judgment against Alliance Bank, and remanded to
the district court to enter summary judgment in favor of Alliance Bank.
On appeal to the supreme court, the
following issues are presented: (1) whether the “Ponzi scheme presumption”
applies to actions under MUFTA; and (2) what statute of limitations applies to
actions under MUFTA. (Dakota County)
Wednesday, May 7,
2014
Supreme Court
Courtroom, State Capitol
Jacky
L. Larson, Appellant, vs. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company,
Respondent, CMInformation Specialists, Inc., Respondent – Case No. A13-0186:
Appellant
Jacky Larson brought an action challenging the rescission of a life insurance
policy issued to her deceased husband by respondent Northwestern Mutual Life
Insurance Company on the ground that the decedent had failed to disclose his
heart-related medical history. Larson
also brought claims against respondent CMInformation Specialists, Inc. (CMI),
asserting that CMI had violated the Minnesota Health Records Act, Minn. Stat.
§§ 144.291–.34 (2012), by failing to provide a full set of the decedent’s
medical records to Northwestern Mutual.
The district court granted summary judgment to both Northwestern Mutual
and CMI. The court of appeals
affirmed.
On appeal to the supreme court, the
following issues are presented: (1) whether the decedent made “willfully false
or intentionally misleading” representations under Minn. Stat. § 61A.11 (2012),
which warranted rescission of the life insurance policy as a matter of law; and
(2) whether the Minnesota Health Records Act provides a cause of action against
a medical records releaser that allegedly under-disclosed a patient’s records
to a third party. (Hennepin County)
Nonoral: State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs.
Toby Earl Johnson, Appellant – Case No. A13-2353: Toby Earl
Johnson pleaded guilty in April 2000 to aiding and abetting premeditated
first-degree murder for the home invasion, torture, and killing of Randy Pool
in 1999. Johnson was sentenced to life
in prison and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $23,060.22. The district court held Johnson jointly and
severally liable for this amount with the co-defendants also convicted of
committing the crimes. Of that amount, $7,468.48
was for house repairs, and $3,080.41 was for loss of an automobile.
On appeal to the supreme court, the
following issues are presented: (1) whether the district court improperly
calculated the amount of restitution by including amounts that were reimbursed
by insurance and by valuing the lost vehicle by the amount due on an
outstanding loan; and (2) whether a criminal defendant may be held jointly and
severally liable with his co-defendants for restitution. (McLeod County)
Thursday, May 8,
2014
Supreme Court
Courtroom, State Capitol
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Keith Richard Rossberg,
Appellant – Case No. A13-1241: Keith Richard Rossberg was convicted of first-degree premeditated
murder in March 2013 for the shooting death of his friend and neighbor Devan
Hawkinson in 2011. As part of its case-in-chief, and over Rossberg’s objection,
the State introduced evidence of a variety of incidents that occurred in late
2008, all of which involved some kind of misconduct by Rossberg, including acts
of violence, or threats of violence, against Hawkinson; damage to Hawkinson’s
property; and firearms-related conduct. The State also presented evidence that
Hawkinson expressed his fear of Rossberg. The trial court ruled that the
evidence was admissible to show the relationship between Rossberg and
Hawkinson.
On
appeal to the supreme court, numerous issues are presented, including: (1)
whether Rossberg was denied the right to a fair trial when the State introduced
a vast array of bad-act and character evidence that was remote in time from the
charged offense and which lacked probative value as to motive, intent,
opportunity, or plan; and (2) whether Rossberg was denied a fair trial where
the trial court admitted statements by Hawkinson to police concerning his fear
of Rossberg, when the statements were made during the police investigation and
Rossberg did not raise the defense of accident, suicide, or self-defense.
(Wright County).
Monday, May 12,
2014
Champlin Park
High School
Daniel
Garcia-Mendoza, Appellant, vs. 2003 Chevy Tahoe, Vin #1GNEC13V23R143453, Plate
#235JBM, et al., Respondents – Case No. A13-0445:
On March 19, 2012, the police stopped appellant Daniel Garcia-Mendoza
while driving the 2003 Chevy Tahoe.
Police searched the vehicle and discovered a plastic bag with 225.90
grams of methamphetamine. Garcia-Mendoza
was given a notice of seizure and intent to forfeit the Tahoe and $611 in cash
that was found on his person. Garcia-Mendoza was also charged in both state
and federal court with controlled-substance crimes. He pleaded guilty in federal court, and the
state criminal charges were dismissed.
Garcia-Mendoza filed a timely petition
for judicial determination of forfeiture.
After Garcia-Mendoza’s federal conviction, Hennepin County moved for
summary judgment in the forfeiture action.
In response to the motion, Garcia-Mendoza argued that his property
should not be forfeited because his state and federal constitutional rights
against unreasonable searches and seizures were violated by the stop of his
vehicle and subsequent search of it. The
district court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment. The court determined that there was not a
reasonable, articulable suspicion for the stop of the Tahoe or a legitimate
basis for the expansion of the stop.
Nevertheless, the court concluded that the legality of the stop was not
at issue in the forfeiture action. The
court of appeals affirmed the district court.
On appeal to the supreme court,
the following issues are presented: (1) whether the exclusionary rule applies
to civil forfeiture actions; and (2) if the exclusionary rule applies, whether
the County has an independent and untainted basis to seek forfeiture of the
Tahoe and cash found on Garcia-Mendoza.
(Hennepin County)
Tuesday, May 13,
2014
Courtroom 300,
Minnesota Judicial Center
State
of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Erica Ann Rohde, Appellant – Case No. A13-0610:
The State charged appellant Erica Rohde
with fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance. At a pretrial hearing, Rohde moved to
suppress the methamphetamine arguing the search of her motor vehicle was not
authorized by the inventory-search exception to the state and federal
constitutional prohibitions on unreasonable searches. The district court denied the motion to suppress. Following a stipulated-facts trial, the court
found Rhodes guilty as charged and stayed imposition of sentence. On appeal, Rohde claimed the court erred when
it denied her motion to suppress. The
court of appeals affirmed.
On appeal to the supreme court, the
issue presented is whether a motor vehicle with revoked license plates and no
insurance is subject to immediate impoundment pursuant to the police caretaking
function, when the driver does not request an opportunity to make alternative
towing arrangements. (Anoka County).
In
re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Paul Arthur Moe, a Minnesota
Attorney, Registration No. 264477 – Case No. A13-1611:
An
attorney discipline matter that presents the question of what discipline, if
any, is appropriate based on the facts of the matter.
Wednesday, May 14,
2014
Courtroom 300,
Minnesota Judicial Center
In
re Petition for Review of Panel Decision against RESPONDENT, Panel Case No.
35104 – Case No. A13-1912: An
attorney disciplinary matter that presents the issue of whether a panel of the Lawyers
Professional Responsibility Board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or
unreasonably when it issued an admonition against respondent.
Laura
L. Walsh, Respondent, vs. U.S. Bank, N.A., Appellant – Case No. A13-0742:
Respondent Laura Walsh defaulted on her mortgage loan with appellant U.S. Bank,
N.A., which led to a nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding and a foreclosure
sale. After the sale, Walsh brought an
action against U.S. Bank, alleging that the bank had not properly served the
notice of foreclosure sale. U.S. Bank
moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e).
Following a hearing, the district court dismissed the complaint with
prejudice, concluding that Walsh had “failed to establish any evidence or facts
giving rise to a plausible claim for relief.”
The court of appeals reversed and remanded.
On appeal to the supreme court, the
following issues are presented: (1)
whether the court should adopt the civil pleading standards established by the
United States Supreme Court in Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); and (2) whether the
complaint pleads enough facts to state a claim for relief under Minn. R. Civ.
P. 8.01. (Hennepin County)