| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-2108A07-562 KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellants Kirk and Linda Sander challenge the district court's award of sole legal and physical custody of their biological son to respondents, his maternal aunt and uncle, as de facto custodians under Minn. Stat. ? 257C.01, subd. 2(a) (2006). Appellants argue that: (1) respondents' custody petitions were deficient; (2) respondents failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that they were the child's de facto custodians; (3) the child was placed with respondents for the purposes of adoption, which would exclude them from the definition of de facto custodians; (4) the district court improperly applied the best-interest-of-the-child factors for third-party custody; and (5) the district court abused its discretion by denying appellant's motion for a new trial. We affirm. = = = = A06-2449 Mick Niess, Respondent, Jack Volz, Respondent, Todd Seitz, Respondent, Brian Staska, Respondent, Chris Hultengren, Respondent, George Magdal, Respondent, Mike Dobesh, Respondent, Jeremiah Anderson, Respondent, Unknown Defendant X, Y and Z, et al., Defendants. KLAPHAKE, Judge In December 2005, appellant Thomas Pressler brought this action alleging defamation and related claims against respondents, Fire Instructors of Minnesota (FIAM) and its individual board members, after he was terminated from his position as "service chairman" of FIAM. In July 2006, respondents moved for summary judgment on all claims; Pressler moved to amend the scheduling order and compel discovery. The district court thereafter granted summary judgment to the individual board members, determining that they were protected from suit by statutory immunity under Minn. Stat. ? 317A.257, subd. 1 (2004) (providing statutory immunity to unpaid volunteers of nonprofit organizations). The court further determined that FIAM was entitled to summary judgment on Pressler's claims of defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, injunctive relief, and conversion, as it related to compensation for Pressler's services. The court denied respondents' motion for summary judgment on Pressler's remaining claims, which related to reimbursement of Pressler's credit card expenses. Finally, the court granted in part Pressler's motion to amend the scheduling order to allow him to depose respondents Douglas Thies and Mick Niess, but only on the reimbursement claims; the parties have since entered into a settlement on those reimbursement claims, which are not part of this appeal.[1] Because the district court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in denying Pressler's request to amend the scheduling order, in determining that the individual board members were entitled to statutory immunity and in concluding that FIAM is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Pressler's defamation claim, we affirm.[2] = = = = KLAPHAKE, Judge Pro se relator Robert F. Medek challenges a decision by an unemployment law judge (ULJ) affirming an earlier decision that relator quit employment without good reason caused by the employer and was therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Relator, who had been receiving unemployment benefits for his prior work in the steel fabrication industry, accepted a job with respondent St. Peter Church & School (St. Peter) as a maintenance supervisor, but quit because he lacked computer skills necessary for the work. Because relator informed St. Peter that he wished to quit the unsuitable work within the period required by statute and, at St. Peter's request, continued to work until the position could be filled, we reverse. = = = = A06-2043 KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellants, Cash-N-Pawn of Minnesota, Ltd. and Pawn America Minnesota, LLC, brought this declaratory judgment action against respondent City of St. Paul, challenging the city's decision to increase the fee imposed on pawnshop transactions from .50 to .00 per transaction. On appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment to the city, appellants challenge the validity of the ordinance increasing the fee, arguing: (1) the city council failed to consider any evidence regarding "the costs of processing transactions" when it decided to increase the fee, as required by St. Paul, Minn., Legislative Code ? 344.02 (2007); and (2) the fee represents an invalid tax on pawnshops because it is used to finance general law enforcement. Because our review of the city's exercise of its legislative authority is limited and because the increased fee is neither unreasonable nor excessive, we affirm. = = = = A06-1720 KLAPHAKE, Judge In this certiorari appeal, pro se relator Gary L. Modlin challenges the unemployment law judge's (ULJ) decision that he quit his employment without good reason caused by his employer, respondent Faithful and Gould, Inc. Because the evidence reasonably shows that continuing employment was available to relator in Louisiana following his initial 90-day commitment, but that relator chose to return to Minnesota, we affirm the ULJ's decision. = = = = A07-808 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S.H., Parent. WILLIS, Judge Appellant mother challenges the district court's termination of her parental rights, arguing that the record does not support termination and that termination is not in the best interests of the child. We affirm. = = = = A06-2162 In re: Conservatorship of Dewey P. Wallace. WILLIS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's order of appointment of a conservator for the estate of her long-time companion. Because we determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. = = = = A06-2158 HALBROOKS, Judge By writ of certiorari, relator challenges the decision of the Minnesota Department of Human Services that she is disqualified from working in positions allowing direct contact with children, youth, and individuals receiving services from certain state = = = = A06-2300 Eugene J. Carda, Appellant, vs. Kanabec County, Respondent. CRIPPEN, Judge Appellant Eugene Carda seeks a writ of mandamus to compel respondent Kanabec County to grant his wetland replacement plan application; he argues that respondent failed to "approve or deny" his application within the 60-day period permitted by statute. Appellant further argues that the proceedings before the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BOWSR) did not create an additional 60-day period for action by respondent. Because respondent's rejection of appellant's application was a denial under the statute and because respondent was given an extension under the statute after BOWSR remanded the matter, we affirm summary judgment for respondent. = = = = A06-2143 Gregory C. Dalton, Relator, vs. Highway 18 Collision Center, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. CRIPPEN, Judge Relator Gregory C. Dalton challenges the unemployment law judge's decision that he is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he was discharged by his employer, respondent Highway 18 Collision Center, Inc., for employment misconduct. Because the evidence reasonably supports the disqualification decision, we affirm. = = = = A06-2182 HARTEN, Judge Relator Mary Lund, pro se, challenges the conclusion of an unemployment law judge (ULJ) that relator was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she quit her employment without good reason caused by the employer. There being adequate evidentiary support for the ULJ's conclusion, we affirm. = = = = A06-2113 HARTEN, Judge Appellants challenge the district court's summary judgment determination that res judicata and collateral estoppel bar their action. Because we conclude that res judicata and collateral estoppel do not bar this action, we reverse the summary judgment and remand. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| By visiting this page or clicking the "submit" button above, you agree that you have read and accept this "disclaimer". |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright ©
Michael E. Douglas, Attorney at Law, Saint Paul MN. All Rights
Reserved. Minnesota Law Firm representing Personal Injury, Car / Auto Accident, Workers Compensation, Medical Malpractice, Social Security Disability claims. Dedicated to Injured Workers, Victims of Negligence, Car Accidents, Victims of Fraud, and those in need of legal assistance. |
