Court of Appeals Digest: Mon. 27, 2019.

Byline: Minnesota Lawyer

Civil Published

Class Actions

Mandatory Classes

Appellants argued that their equitable claims for breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud and concealment against respondent retirement-plan trustee satisfied the requirements for certification as a mandatory class under Minn. R. Civ. P. 23.02(a)(1) and (2), even though they also sought monetary relief.

The Court of Appeals held that a class action may be certified as a mandatory class under Minn. R. Civ. P. 23.02(a) when the class seeks monetary recovery and equitable relief on behalf of a retirement plan, rather than on behalf of individual plan participants, for excessive fees charged by the plan's trustee. Reversed and remanded.

A18-1307 Bacon v. Bd. of Pensions of Evangelical Lutheran Church in Am. (Hennepin County)

http://minnlawyer.com/files/2019/05/A18-1307-Bacon-v-Bd-of-Pensions-of-Evangelical-Lutheran-Church-in-Am-OPa181307-0528191.pdf

Offers of Judgment

Costs & Disbursements

Appellant-offeror contended that the District Court erred under Minn. R. Civ. P. 68.03(b)(1), (3) by awarding respondent-offeree costs and disbursements incurred after service of appellant's rule 68 total-obligation offer, which was more favorable than the relief ultimately awarded to respondent.

The Court of Appeals held that, when a defendant makes a pretrial offer of judgment pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 68, and the defendant-offeror prevails or the relief awarded is less favorable than the offer, Minn. R. Civ. P. 68.03(b)(1) precludes the plaintiff-offeree from recovering post-offer costs and disbursements. The District Court's discretion under Minn. R. Civ. P. 68.03(b)(3), to reduce the amount of a party's obligations to eliminate undue hardship or inequity, does not extend to allowing the plaintiff-offeree to recover post-offer costs and disbursements. Reversed and remanded.

A18-1772 Althaus v. Krueger (Washington County)

http://minnlawyer.com/files/2019/05/A18-1772-Althaus-v-Krueger-OPa181772-052819.pdf

Civil Unpublished

Civil Commitment

Records

Appellant, a client of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP), challenged the summary judgment dismissing his claims against respondent commissioner of human services (CHS) under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) and the Minnesota Health Records Act (MHRA). Appellant argued that the District Court erred in determining that there was no triable issue on damages and in failing to consider appellant's other claims for relief. The Court of Appeals concluded that appellant failed to show damages, noting that the erroneous disclosures at issue involved much less information about appellant than was publicly available for years in appellant's civil-commitment documents and in state and federal court opinions. Affirmed.

A18-1538 Karsjens v. Lourey (Ramsey County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181538-052819.pdf

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights

Appellant mother challenged the District Court's decision to terminate her parental rights to her two youngest children. The Court of Appeals concluded that county health and human services failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite mother and her children, noting that termination of mother's parental rights was based mainly on mother's perceived inability to adequately parent the children and understand their needs, but the county's services and case plan requirements did not sufficiently address these issues. Reversed and remanded.

A18-2106 In re Welfare of Child of E.C.S. (Chisago County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa182106-052819.pdf

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights

The District Court terminated a man's parental rights to four children after finding him in default for his failure to appear for trial. On appeal, he argued that the District Court terminated his parental rights in a manner that violated his constitutional right to due process. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court provided appellant with the process to which he was due, and, even if appellant did not receive the process to which he was due, he was not prejudiced because additional procedures nonetheless would have resulted in the termination of his parental rights. Affirmed.

A19-0133 In re Welfare of Children of I.I. (Polk County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa190133-052819.pdf

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights

In these consolidated appeals, appellant-parents challenged the termination of their parental rights to their child. Appellants argued that the District Court erred in determining that the statutory criteria for termination were met and in determining that termination was in the best interests of the child. The Court of Appeals concluded that clear and convincing evidence supports the District Court's determination that mother was palpably unfit to parent, noting mother's unaddressed mental illness, cognitive deficits, lack of insight, poor decision making, and impulsivity. Furthermore, father had been convicted of a crime requiring registration as a predatory offender. Affirmed.

A18-2069, A18-2070 In re Welfare of Child of J.K. (Otter Tail County)

https://mn.g...