| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-0085Spencer Blaw, Appellant, vs. State Farm Insurance Company, et al., Respondents. LANSING, Judge In this appeal from summary judgment, Spencer Blaw disputes the denial of no-fault insurance coverage for gunshot injuries he sustained while vacuuming his minivan. Because there is an insufficient causal relationship between the maintenance of the vehicle and the injuries Blaw sustained, we affirm. = = = = A06-1446 Ricky Lee McDeid, Appellant, vs. Minnesota Department of Human Services, et al., Respondents. LANSING, Judge The district court dismissed Ricky McDeid's claims for recovery under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and an administrative rule governing record keeping at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. Because McDeid's allegations do not state a legally sufficient claim for relief under either the data practices act or the administrative rule governing sex-offender record keeping, we affirm. = = = = A06-1446 Ricky Lee McDeid, Appellant, vs. Minnesota Department of Human Services, et al., Respondents. LANSING, Judge The district court dismissed Ricky McDeid's claims for recovery under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and an administrative rule governing record keeping at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. Because McDeid's allegations do not state a legally sufficient claim for relief under either the data practices act or the administrative rule governing sex-offender record keeping, we affirm. = = = = A06-2181 Cheryl Eben, f/k/a Cheryl Brouillette, Respondent, vs. Michael James Brouillette, Appellant. RANDALL, Judge Appellant-father seeks review of the district court's decision to uphold a Child Support Magistrate's (CSM) denial of modification of the amount of child support arrears owed to respondent-mother. Appellant argues the district court abused its discretion (1) in upholding the refusal to discharge all of his remaining arrears; (2) in refusing to examine his new evidence; and (3) by refusing to apply the equitable doctrine of laches to preclude further collection of arrears by respondent. We affirm. = = = = A06-1956 Mark S. Muellner, Respondent, vs. Cherne Industries, Inc., Relator, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. RANDALL, Judge Relator employer challenges the decision by the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that respondent employee was not disqualified from unemployment benefits because he had been discharged for poor performance and not for employment misconduct. Relator argues that the ULJ (a) ignored evidence of the employee's repeated refusal to complete his job duties and follow his supervisor's instructions, and (b) ignored settled law that once an employer makes a reasonable request, the employee's failure to follow it constitutes employment misconduct. The evidence and testimony supports the ULJ's conclusion that the employee was discharged for reasons other than employment misconduct. We affirm. = = = = A06-1916 In the Matter of the Grocery and Tobacco Dealer License Held by Uncle Bill's Market, Inc., d/b/a Uncle Bill's Market RANDALL, Judge On appeal from revocation of relator's tobacco and grocery licenses, relator argues that the city acted arbitrarily and capriciously by imposing a penalty that substantially deviated from the recommendations of the ALJ and the department of licensing. Relator also contends that comments by city council members demonstrate that the revocation of the license was "an exercise of will over judgment." Finally, relator argues that certain mitigating factors required the city to impose a penalty short of revocation. We affirm. = = = = A07-0501 T.H.E. Insurance Company, Respondent, vs. BJM, Inc. d/b/a Voyagaire Lodge and Houseboats, et al., Defendants, Duoa Yang, et al., Appellants. \ KLAPHAKE, Judge Ten people sustained brain damage from carbon monoxide poisoning while on a houseboat that they rented from Voyagaire Lodge and Houseboats (Voyagaire). The injured parties initiated a negligence action against BJM, Inc., an umbrella corporation that included Voyagaire and other entities and individuals associated with Voyagaire; Voyagaire's insurer, respondent T.H.E. Insurance Company, intervened. Respondent filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination of policy coverage limits asserting that a million limit applied. On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court granted summary judgment for respondent. Because million was the limit of insurance coverage under the plain language of the applicable provisions of the policy, we affirm. = = = = A07-183 Lon J. Hoy, Relator, vs. Heartthrob Exhaust Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. PETERSON, Judge This appeal is from a decision of an unemployment law judge (ULJ) that relator is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he was discharged from his employment for misconduct. We affirm. = = = = A06-2253 Herbert James Bruber, et al., Appellants, vs. Harvey Homes, Inc., Respondent, Marvin Windows, Inc. d/b/a Marvin Windows and Doors, Respondent, ABC Corporation, et al., Defendants, and Harvey Homes, Inc., Defendants and Third Party Plaintiff, vs. Randy Gabrelcik d/b/a Gabrelcik Masonry and Gabrelcik Enterprises, Inc., third party defendant, Respondent, Timothy E. Buffham d/b/a Chasid Construction Company, et al., Third Party Defendants. PETERSON Judge This appeal is from a summary judgment dismissing as time-barred appellants' statutory-warranty and common-law negligence claims for damage to their home. We affirm the dismissal of the negligence claim, but because the district court applied the statute governing common-law claims to both the common-law and statutory claims, we reverse the dismissal of the warranty claim and remand. = = = = A06-2065 Alisha M. Simmons, Relator, vs. Esthesia Oral Surgery Care, P.A., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. PETERSON, Judge In this certiorari appeal from a decision of an unemployment law judge (ULJ) that relator Alisha Simmons is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she was discharged for misconduct, relator argues that (a) her conduct was a good-faith error in judgment, rather than misconduct; (b) her conduct had no adverse impact on the employer; and (c) the ULJ's findings of fact and credibility determinations are not supported by the record. We affirm. = = = = A07-452 In re the Paternity and Custody of: Baby Boy A., d/o/b December 17, 2005, P.G.M., petitioner, Respondent, vs. J.M.A., Appellant. WILLIS, Judge Appellant, who served as the gestational surrogate for respondent's child, challenges the district court's determination of parentage and custody in favor of respondent, arguing that the district court (1) erred by enforcing the parties' gestational-surrogacy agreement; (2) erred by applying Illinois law as provided by the choice-of-law provision in the parties' agreement and then incorrectly applied Illinois law; and (3) abused its discretion by granting respondent's request to change the child's name. Because the record supports the district court's findings and it did not err in its application of the law, we affirm. = = = = A06-1628 Chicago Title Insurance Company, a Missouri corporation, Respondent, vs. Old Dominion Title Services, Inc., et al., Defendants, Molly L. Heise, et al., Appellants, and EastBank, intervenor, Respondent, Provident Funding Associates, L. P., intervenor, Respondent, Principal Residential Mortgage, Inc., n/k/a CitiMortgage, Inc., intervenor, Respondent, and Lighthouse Management Group, LLC SHUMAKER, Judge Appellants Molly Heise, Richard T. Heise, and Matthew R. Heise challenge summary judgments in favor of respondents Chicago Title Insurance Co., Provident Funding Associates L.P., and Principal Residential Mortgage, Inc. on claims of intentional and negligent misrepresentation, alter-ego liability, unjust enrichment, and conversion, and they contest the district court's appointment of a receiver, order for attachment, and imposition of a constructive trust over their assets, resulting in liquidation of the assets and distribution of funds. They also challenge the district court's refusal to permit Richard and Matthew Heise to use funds from their liquidated assets to satisfy the judgments against them rather than the judgments against Molly Heise and Profile Title. Because (a) there are genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment and (b) the district court erred as a matter of law in granting the motion to amend the complaint under Minn. R. Civ. P. 15.02, we reverse and remand. We hold that the challenges to the appointment of a receiver, order for attachment, and constructive trust are moot. Finally, we remand the issue raised by Richard and Matthew Heise regarding the use of their liquidated assets for the district court to reassess after resolution of the other issues, if necessary. = = = = A06-2399 Acuity Insurance Company, Respondent, vs. R & H Painting, Inc., Appellant. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment to respondent on the grounds that the district court erred in (1) its conclusion that the language of the insurance policy is unambiguous and (2) its determination that the reasonable-expectation doctrine is not applicable. We affirm. = = = = A06-2133 Jason George, Appellant, vs. Daniel Evenson, et al., Defendants, Auto-Owners Insurance Company, Respondent, Progressive Insurance Company, Respondent. HALBROOKS, Judge On appeal from dismissal of his claims against two different insurers, appellant argues the district court erred in (1) dismissing his claim against respondent Progressive Insurance Company for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, (2) granting summary judgment to respondent Auto-Owners Insurance Company, and (3) denying his motion to confirm his arbitration award. Because we conclude that the district court correctly dismissed appellant's claim against Progressive for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, we affirm in part. But because we conclude the district court erred in granting Auto-Owners's motion for summary judgment and in denying appellant's motion to confirm the arbitration award, we reverse in part and remand. = = = = A06-1787 Tony L. Everette, Relator, vs. C-Aire Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. HALBROOKS, Judge In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. We affirm. = = = = A07-0021 Maynard A. Howe, Appellant, vs. Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., Respondent, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., Third Party Plaintiff, vs. Roger Howe, Third Party Defendant. STONEBURNER, Judge In this legal-malpractice action, appellant challenges the grant of summary judgment to respondent based on the district court's conclusion that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. Respondent seeks review of the district court's determination that questions of fact precluded summary judgment for failure to establish causation. Because the district court did not err in holding that the action is barred by the statute of limitations, we affirm without reaching the issue of causation. = = = = A06-2343 Jaime Jaramillo, et al., Appellants, vs. Lawrence C. Weaver, et al., Respondents. MINGE, Judge Appellants challenge the dismissal of their complaint under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Because we conclude that appellants' complaint was legally insufficient to support their claims, we affirm. = = = = A07-1290 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Donald Dean Christiansen, Appellant HUDSON, Judge On appeal from an order for indeterminate commitment as a sexually dangerous person and as a sexual psychopathic personality, appellant argues that (1) there was not clear and convincing evidence that he met the statutory definitions of a sexually dangerous person or sexual psychopathic personality; and (2) his indeterminate commitment violated the double jeopardy and ex post facto clauses. Because there was clear and convincing evidence that appellant met the definitions of a sexually dangerous person and a sexual psychopathic personality, and his commitment does not violate his constitutional rights, we affirm. = = = = A06-2252 Kerry French, Appellant, vs. Brookdale Motor Sales, Inc. d/b/a Luther Brookdale Buick Pontiac GMC, Respondent. DSON, Judge Appellant Kerry French argues that the district court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of respondent Brookdale Motor Sales, Inc. and dismissing his whistleblower claim because (1) his report implicated a violation of law and was made in good faith, and (2) he established the elements of a prima facie whistleblower claim. Because we conclude that appellant did not engage in protected conduct under Minnesota's whistleblower statute, we affirm. = = = = A07-1181 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of Ronald Lee Harrison WRIGHT, Judge In this appeal challenging his indeterminate commitment as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and a sexual psychopathic personality (SPP), appellant argues that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the district court's findings that he is an SDP and an SPP, and (2) the indeterminate commitment statutes violate the constitutional right to due process. We affirm. = = = = A07-0561 H.T.S., Appellant, vs. R.B.L., Respondent. WRIGHT, Judge In this appeal from the district court's order awarding custody to respondent-father, appellant-mother argues that (1) the district court abused its discretion by denying her motion to reopen the record under Minn. Stat. ? 518.145, subd. 2 (2006); (2) the denial of the motion violated the right to procedural due process; and (3) the district court abused its discretion when performing the best-interests analysis. We affirm. = = = = A07-1449 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jerry James Thompson, Appellant. WORKE, Judge On appeal from initial and indeterminate commitment orders, appellant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his commitment as a sexually dangerous person, (2) he established a less restrictive alternative in an outpatient sex-offender program, (3) civil commitment violates double jeopardy, and (4) this court should recognize a constitutional right to a jury trial with a reasonable-doubt standard in commitment cases. We affirm. = = = = A07-373 James P. Carey, as Trustee for Heirs & Next-of-Kin of Erik Richard Marwick, deceased, et al., Appellants, vs. Joshua Daniel Lofquist, et al., Defendants, Starkovich Distributing, Inc., Respondent, Silver Creek Liquor Co., Inc., d/b/a Silver Creek Liquor, Respondent, J & H Distributing, Inc., d/b/a University Liquors, Respondent, Coborn's Inc., d/b/a Cash Wise Liquor, Respondent, Red Carpet Bottle House, Inc., d/b/a Shanty Bottle Shop, Respondent. WORKE, Judge On appeal from summary judgment in a dram-shop action against retail liquor vendors, appellants argue that the district court erred as a matter of law in concluding that Restatement (Second) of Torts ? 433B (1965) does not apply and that respondents did not have a duty to prove that they did not sell the illegally purchased beer. Respondent Shanty Bottle Shop also argues that the action against it should have been dismissed because it was not given notice within 240 days after the formation of an attorney-client relationship, as required by the Minnesota Civil Damages Act. Because section 433B has not been adopted by Minnesota courts, it does not apply. We further conclude that respondent Shanty Bottle Shop received notice within the required 240 days, and we affirm. = = = = A07-270 WesternBank, N. A., f/k/a Western National Bank, Respondent, vs. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, a Delaware corporation, et al., Appellants, Mark E. Hamilton, Respondent, Rose L. Hamilton, Respondent. WORKE, Judge On appeal from summary judgment in a declaratory-judgment action determining a lien dispute between appellant mortgagee and respondent personal-property lienor, appellant argues that (1) the district court erred in ruling that respondent had an equitable interest in the house separate from a lien on the land; (2) the record fails to establish who owns the house, ownership of which must be identified to establish an equitable lien; (3) any existing lien held by respondent on the house would have been subordinated to appellant's purchase-money mortgage; and (4) whatever interest or lien respondent may have had, it should not have secured attorney fees in the replevin action that preceded this lawsuit. Respondent has filed a notice of review challenging the district court's denial of attorney fees in this action. We affirm the district court's determination of an equitable interest, properly termed an equitable lien, covering the house, and conclude that appellant's mortgage may not, in equity, take priority as a purchase-money mortgage over that lien. We also affirm the denial of attorney fees in this action, but reverse the district court's award of attorney fees in the replevin action. = = = = A06-1839 Robert Follis, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. LANSING, Judge The district court denied Robert Follis's petition to enjoin the termination of his contract for deed. Follis appeals, arguing that the district court erred by concluding that it lacked statutory authority to grant relief under Minn. Stat. ? 559.211 (2006) based on an alleged right to payment for a medical-assistance claim that did not arise under or in relation to the contract for deed. Because Follis's potential claim was insufficiently related to the contract for deed, the district court did not err when it found that the statute did not apply, and we affirm. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
