| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-1540In re the Marriage of: Sheila Lorraine Janiksela, n/k/a Sheila Lorraine Steffen, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Corey Lee Janiksela, Appellant. PETERSON, Judge This appeal is from an order that denies a motion for an evidentiary hearing regarding a modification of legal and physical custody. We affirm. = = = = A07-1329 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: C.M.K., Parent PETERSON, Judge This appeal is from an order that dismissed appellant-grandmother's permanent-placement petition for lack of personal jurisdiction over respondent-mother. We affirm. = = = = A07-1324 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: B.H.C., R.L.G., T.R.K. and J.E.T., Parents. ROSS, Judge This appeal requires us to decide whether the district court had sufficient grounds to terminate J.E.T.'s parental rights to her four children. We have carefully assessed the record and considered the district court's well-reasoned, clearly analyzed, and thorough order. Because the record provides clear and convincing evidence to support the district court's finding that J.E.T. is palpably unfit to parent her children and that termination is in the children's best interests, we affirm the judgment terminating J.E.T.'s parental rights. = = = = A07-1215 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of C. M., Parent STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant challenges termination of her parental rights, arguing that the district court improperly applied the presumption that she is palpably unfit to parent, misapplied the presumption that reasonable efforts have failed to correct conditions leading to out-of-home placement, erred by finding that the county made reasonable efforts to reunify, and erroneously terminated her rights based on her incarceration. Because the district court did not err in concluding that there is clear and convincing evidence to support termination of appellant's parental rights and that termination is in the child's best interests, we affirm. = = = = A07-1103 In re the Matter of: Gregory J. Waltz, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Jaci Jo Marie Soupir, Respondent. RANDALL, Judge On appeal from the district court's award of sole legal and physical custody to respondent-mother, appellant-father argues (a) he should have been awarded sole legal custody claiming mother does not provide adequate medical, educational, or religious care for the child; (b) the record does not support the district court's findings of fact on the physical-custody factors; and (c) the district court abused its discretion by admitting as evidence a recording of a phone call where the probative value of the recording was outweighed by the prejudice it caused, there was inadequate foundation for the admission, and the content of the recording was not trustworthy. We affirm. = = = = A07-0685 In re the Marriage of: Debra Christine Brunette, n/k/a Debra Christine Klein, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Scott David Brunette, Appellant. KLAPHAKE, Judge In this marital dissolution appeal, appellant Scott Brunette argues that (1) the district court abused its discretion by declining to approve the parties' proposed dissolution stipulation and in declining to vacate the parties' dissolution settlement agreement; (2) the district court erred by failing to address some of his other requests for relief; and (3) the district court abused its discretion by awarding sanctions and attorney fees against him. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in either declining to approve the stipulation or declining to vacate the settlement agreement, did not err in failing to address some of his requests for relief, and did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney fees, but the court did abuse its discretion by awarding sanctions. We therefore affirm in part, but reverse the award of ,000 in sanctions. = = = = A07-0484 Leon E. Beam, Appellant, vs. Michael Stamer individually and d/b/a Michael Stamer Farms, Respondent. MUEHLBERG, Judge This action arises out of a claim for unpaid mileage reimbursement and interest owed in a loan arrangement between employer and employee. Appellant challenges the district court order that granted partial recovery and barred other claims under a two-year statute of limitations for wage claims. Appellant also challenges the district court's denial of his motion for attorney fees. Because appellant brought his motion for attorney fees under an inapplicable statute, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Because appellant's claim arose out of a loan agreement, not a wage agreement, his claim is subject to the six-year statute of limitations under Minn. Stat. ? 541.05, subd. 1(1) (2006). We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. = = = = A07-0421 John H. Witzke, Respondent, vs. Mesabi Rehabilitation Services Inc., Appellant. ROSS, Judge Mesabi Rehabilitation Services, Inc., appeals from the district court's summary judgment decision in favor of a former employee upon the court's holding that restrictive covenants in the parties' employment contract are void for lack of consideration. John Witzke worked for Mesabi for several months before Mesabi asked him to sign an employment contract containing the restrictive covenants, including a noncompetition agreement and a nonsolicitation agreement. Witzke then received support, training, and promotions at Mesabi. But seventeen years after he signed the contract, Witzke left Mesabi to start his own rehabilitation services company. Because the postagreement professional enhancements Mesabi afforded Witzke constitute sufficient consideration, we reverse the district court's summary judgment decision and remand for further proceedings. = = = = A07-0413 Tenant Construction, Inc., Respondent, vs. Scott H. Mason, Appellant, Mosborg Ventures LLC, et al., Defendants. CRIPPEN, Judge Appellant Scott Mason questions whether the district court's order and judgment prohibiting him from violating a noncompete agreement is supported by the record. We affirm. = = = = A07-0381 Minnewawa Sportsman's Club, Relator, vs. County of Aitkin, et al., Respondents. ROSS, Judge This appeal arises from Minnewawa Sportsman's Club's request for a conditional use permit to expand its operation by adding an archery range and a new road to its firearms-range operation in Aitkin County. The club operates under a 1997 conditional use permit, which the county's planning commission issued with no expressly stated conditions. The county granted the club's application for an amendment to the conditional use permit, but it added 17 conditions that related mostly to the firearms use rather than exclusively to the archery range and road uses. Because we agree with Minnewawa that its limited conditional-use-permit application does not open the door for the county to add conditions to the club's existing permit for use as a firearms range, we reverse in part. But because the permit imposed several reasonable conditions related to the addition of an archery range and a new road, we affirm in part. = = = = A07-203 A07-606 John J. O'Donnell, Appellant, vs. City of Buffalo, et al., Respondents (A07-203), Todd Rathbun, et al., Respondents (A07-606). DIETZEN, Judge In these consolidated appeals, appellant challenges the district court order granting summary judgment and dismissing his defamation claim against respondents City of Buffalo and Buffalo Fire Chief Robin J. Barfknecht, arguing that the district court erred in concluding that (1) appellant is a public official and that actual malice must be proven; (2) his claim was barred by absolute and qualified privilege; and (3) there are no genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment. Appellant also challenges the district court order dismissing his defamation claim against the six respondent firefighters (six firefighters), arguing that the district court erred in dismissing appellant's claim as a matter of law. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. = = = = A07-63 Joseph Leitner, Appellant, vs. Gartner Studios, Inc., Respondent. HUDSON, Judge On appeal from summary judgment in favor of respondent, appellant argues that (1) genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether appellant is disabled within the meaning of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, whether he is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation, and whether respondent failed to provide him with a reasonable accommodation; and (2) respondent's reason for firing appellant was pretextual and therefore precluded summary judgment. Because we conclude that appellant was not disabled within the meaning of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, we affirm. = = = = A06-2479 Donald H. Sealock, O.D., F.A.A.O., Respondent, vs. Jay B. Petersen, O.D., individually, and Jay B. Petersen, as sole owner, director and officer of Lost Lake Optical Company, and of Lost Lake Opticians, LLC, and of Lost Lake Optometry, PLLC, et al., Appellants. WILLIS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's judgment awarding damages to respondent for breach of a noncompete agreement and enjoining appellant from advertising his optometry practice in certain newspapers. We affirm. = = = = A06-2357 Fathi Chalbi, Relator, vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge Relator challenges the unemployment law judge's decision that he is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he knowingly failed to report earnings and engaged in fraud. Relator argues that he could not read the department's handbook because English is his second language, and therefore he did not knowingly fail to report earnings from a second job. Relator acknowledges that he was overpaid, but he asserts it was not because of any fraudulent activity on his part. And finally, relator contests the amount he owes. Because the unemployment law judge's decision is supported by substantial evidence and is not arbitrary or capricious, we affirm. = = = = A06-2266 D. N. N., individually and on behalf of her minor son, H. A. N., Appellant, vs. Dr. Steven Joseph Berestka, Defendant, Unity Hospital, et al., Respondents. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant D.N.N., on behalf of her minor son H.A.N., brought a medical-malpractice claim against respondents Unity Hospital and Allina Health System. Appellant's claim is the result of a circumcision procedure performed on H.A.N. by Steven Joseph Berestka, M.D. at Unity Hospital. Before trial, respondents moved for summary judgment, and appellant moved for partial summary judgment and to amend the complaint to add a punitive-damages claim. The district court denied appellant's motions and granted summary judgment to respondents. Appellant argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to respondents. Appellant asserts that the district court erred because (1) under a traditional negligence claim, respondents had a legal duty to protect H.A.N. from the harm caused by Dr. Berestka; (2) respondents' violation of federal Medicare law establishes a prima facie case of negligence per se; and (3) appellant's complaint should be amended to include punitive damages. We affirm. = = = = A06-2224 Anthony Joseph Byrne, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Commissioner of Public Safety, Respondent. HUSPENI, Judge Appellant challenges the decision sustaining the cancellation and denial of his driver's license for having violated a restriction that he totally abstain from the use of alcohol. Because the record contains substantial evidence to support the determination that appellant consumed alcohol in violation of the total-abstinence restriction on his driver's license, we affirm. = = = = A06-1937 Rose Aboud, formerly known as Rose L. Osbourne, individually and as shareholder of RM Michaels Construction, Inc., and as shareholder of Midwest Development, Inc., Appellant, vs. Zack Dyab, et al., Respondents, Eastbank, et al., Intervenors. MINGE, Judge Appellant claims that the district court erred by granting respondents a new trial, imposing an attorney fee sanction against her and her attorney in the amount of ,000, and conditioning receipt of a new trial on payment of that ,000 to respondents. Appellant also claims that the district court erred or abused its discretion when it (1) did not grant her posttrial motions; (2) entered a directed verdict dismissing American Choice Lending, Inc., as a codefendant and dismissing claims regarding a property in Blaine; (3) denied her motion to amend her complaint to include punitive damages; and (4) ruled in limine that she could not testify at trial regarding an alleged romantic relationship with respondent Dyab. We affirm the orders granting a new trial, dismissing American Choice Lending, dismissing claims regarding the Blaine property, and suppressing testimony regarding the alleged romantic relationship. However, because the district court abused its discretion when it awarded the attorney fee sanction in this case, we reverse the sanction award and remand for retrial. The remaining issues are remanded for consideration with the new trial. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
