Unpublished Civil Decisions for 10 Nov 2009

Summaries of the Unpublished Decisions in the Minnesota Court of Appeals for November 10, 2009

A09-1110
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: V. J. J. and R. L. H., Parents
LARKIN, Judge
Appellant-mother challenges the termination of her parental rights, arguing that her conduct did not constitute felony neglect of a child, that she did not have actual or constructive knowledge that substantial bodily harm was inflicted upon her child, and that neither the nature, duration, nor chronicity of her child’s injuries demonstrated lack of regard for her child’s well-being. We affirm.

---

A09-1080
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: John Jerry Cermak
STAUBER, Judge
Appellant John Jerry Cermak appeals his initial and indeterminate commitment to treatment in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and sexual psychopathic personality (SPP). Because clear and convincing evidence supports the district court’s findings, we affirm.

---

A09-0549, A09-0566, A09-0616
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: R. W. and T. W., Parents
WRIGHT, Judge
In these consolidated appeals from the district court’s denial of a petition to terminate respondents’ parental rights, appellants argue that the district court erred by determining that substantial evidence does not support the termination of parental rights on the statutory grounds of palpable unfitness and failure to correct the conditions that led to the out-of-home placement, and that the record does not support the district court’s finding that termination is not in the children’s best interests. Appellant guardian ad litem also argues that the district court abused its discretion by disregarding the testimony of the expert witness. And appellant county argues that the district court was required to order a new case plan for respondents. Because the dispositive district court findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence and a new case plan is not required, we affirm.

---

A09-431
Robert Johnson, Relator, vs. AB Taxi and Shuttle of Austin Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
LANSING, Judge
In this appeal, by writ of certiorari, from the denial of unemployment-compensation benefits, Robert Johnson challenges the unemployment-law judge’s determination that he quit his employment with AB Taxi and that AB Taxi’s appeal was timely. Because the appeal was timely and Johnson was ineligible for benefits as of the effective date of his resignation, we affirm.

---

A09-330
David Tillman, Appellant, vs. David Werner, et al., Defendants, BB Motors, LLC d/b/a Luther Brookdale Chevrolet, Respondent.
LANSING, Judge
In litigation arising from David Tillman’s uncompleted sale of a truck that he originally purchased from BB Motors, LLC, the district court granted default judgment for Tillman against Werner Trans, Inc., the intended purchaser, and summary judgment dismissing Tillman’s claims against BB Motors. On appeal, Tillman challenges the summary-judgment dismissal of Tillman’s claim against BB Motors for failure to adhere to the title-transfer timelines in Minn. Stat. § 168A.11 (2006) and on his claim for misrepresentation of the truck’s status on titling documents under Minn. Stat. § 325E.15 (2006). Because the district court properly determined that Tillman failed to provide evidence of causation under section 168A.11 or liability under section 325E.15, we affirm.

---

A09-328
Michael James Stein, Respondent, vs. City of Lino Lakes, Appellant.
CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment based on official immunity and argues that the district court erred in granting respondent leave to amend his complaint. Because the evidence in the record fails to identify a specific ministerial duty owed or that such a duty was violated, we reverse and remand for entry of summary judgment in favor of appellant.

---

A09-294
American Building Contractors, Inc., Respondent, vs. Asset Restoration & Remodeling, LLC, Defendant, Clifford D. Kurth, Appellant.
KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant Clifford Kurth challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment to his former employer, respondent American Building Contractors, Inc. (ABC), on his counterclaims of reprisal under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) and tortious interference with prospective advantage. Respondent sued appellant for breach of contract after appellant began employment with a competitor employer within the geographical range prohibited by a noncompete agreement appellant signed at commencement of his employment with respondent. Because appellant has failed to establish a prima facie case of either reprisal or tortious interference with prospective advantage, we affirm. We also grant respondent’s motions to strike portions of appellant’s reply brief and appendix, and deny respondent’s motion for attorney fees.

---

A09-272
Joe Juranitch, Relator, vs. Independent School District No. 270, Respondent.
LANSING, Judge
In this appeal by writ of certiorari, Joe Juranitch challenges the Hopkins School District’s decision to eliminate his position for the 2008-09 school year. Because Juranitch filed his petition more than sixty days after the school district provided him with written notice of his termination, his petition is untimely and we discharge the writ.

---

A09-130
Becky Sutton, Relator, vs. East Metro Clean N Press Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
HUDSON, Judge
Relator challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she quit her job without good reason caused by her employer. Because the decision of the ULJ is supported by the evidence and not affected by legal error, we affirm.

---

A09-96
In re the Marriage of: Patricia A. Jodsaas, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Larry E. Jodsaas, Respondent.
KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant Patricia A. Jodsaas, n/k/a Patricia A. Newton (Newton) challenges the district court’s order reopening part of the property division in the judgment dissolving her marriage to respondent Larry E. Jodsaas (Jodsaas) under Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd. 2(5) (2008). Newton argues that the basis for Jodsaas’ motion to reopen the property division is either a unilateral mistake or newly discovered evidence, and the motion is therefore either time-barred under Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd. 2(1), (2) (2008), or subject to collateral estoppel based on an earlier court order denying a similar motion. Because we conclude that the district court did not err by determining that it would be inequitable for the judgment to have prospective application or abuse its discretion by refusing to apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel, we affirm.

---

A09-89
Connie Kimeu, Relator, vs. Foundation for Health Care Continuums, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
KLAPHAKE, Judge
Relator Connie Kimeu challenges the decision of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) determining that she was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because she quit without good reason caused by her employer, respondent Foundation for Health Care Continuums. Relator argues that she did not voluntarily quit, because her separation from employment was caused by her husband’s military relocation order. Because the employer was not responsible for causing relator to quit her employment, we affirm.

---

A09-274
State of Minnesota, City of Crystal, Appellant, vs. A. J. H., Respondent.
KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant City of Crystal challenges the district court’s order expunging the criminal records of respondent A.J.H., who was convicted of reckless discharge of a firearm, Minn. Stat. § 609.66, subd. 1a(a)(3), 1a(b)(2) (Supp. 2005), a felony. Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by granting respondent’s petition when respondent was found guilty of the underlying charge and that the court exceeded its authority by ordering sealing of records held by the executive branch. Because we conclude that the district court must more fully consider whether expungement of such executive branch records will violate the separation of powers doctrine, we remand for further proceedings.

Tags: civil, Minnesota, unpublished cases

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 10th, 2009 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Minnesota case summaries. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment below, or trackback from your own site.