Court of Appeals Digest: May 5, 2025

Listen to this article

Civil Precedential

Anti-SLAPP

Scope of Privilege

This interlocutory appeal arose under the Minnesota Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), an anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute that allows defendants to bring a special motion for expedited relief to dismiss certain types of claims, and to immediately appeal if the District Court denies their motion, in whole or part. Here, appellants challenged a District Court order denying their special motion for expedited relief to dismiss respondent’s defamation and invasion-of-privacy claims. The claims were based on statements made by appellants—two attorneys and their law firm—to the media and in a court filing in relation to a lawsuit brought by their client against respondent.

The Court of Appeals held that (1) it reviews de novo a District Court decision on a special motion for expedited relief UPEPA; and (2) statements made by an attorney to the media regarding a lawsuit do not generally fall within the protections of the judicial-proceedings privilege. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A24-1486 Cook v. Trimble (Hennepin County)

Health Care

Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act

Appellant, surviving spouse, challenged the District Court’s decision to dismiss her amended complaint on the ground that respondent hospital and was immune from suit under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP). Appellant argued that the mere fact that respondent suspected decedent had COVID-19 did not, in and of itself, dictate that they should not also proceed with testing and treatment for bacterial pneumonia under the facts as alleged in the amended complaint.

The Court of Appeals concluded that, when a plaintiff alleges a medical-negligence claim based upon a misdiagnosis, a defendant covered under PREP, is not entitled to immunity because they used a treatment that is a covered countermeasure to treat the misdiagnosed medical condition. Reversed and remanded.

A24-1339 Roos v. HealthPartners, Inc. (Ramsey County)

Civil Nonprecedential

Domestic Relations

Child Custody; Modification

In this appeal challenging the District Court’s denial of her motion to modify custody, appellant mother argued that the District Court abused its discretion by (1) admitting evidence relating to events that happened before the prior custody order, (2) making clearly erroneous findings of fact, (3) limiting the motion-hearing proceedings to 90 minutes, and (4) insufficiently explaining its finding that mother did not show endangerment and improperly applying the law in determining that custody modification was unwarranted. Noting that the history of the child’s care was a relevant consideration in addressing the child’s current circumstances, that the District Court rejected mother’s claim that the abuse allegations were uniformly false, and that mother’s argument that the District Court denied her a fair custody hearing lacked merit, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by denying mother’s motion to modify custody. Affirmed.

A24-1355 Gallo-Valdivia v. Hanson (Anoka County)

Domestic Relations

Grandparent Visitation; Jurisdiction

Appellant-mother challenged the District Court’s order denying her motion to dismiss this grandparent-visitation matter for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). She argued that Minnesota does not have jurisdiction under the UCCJEA because (1) she and the child no longer resided in Minnesota and (2) this matter involved grandparent visitation, not custody. The Court of Appeals agreed that the change of residence terminated Minnesota jurisdiction. Reversed and remanded.

A24-1521 Ewald v. Nedrebo (Hennepin County)

Employment

Discrimination

Pro se appellant-employee challenged the summary-judgment dismissal of his discrimination and retaliation claims against respondent-employer. Appellant argued that the District Court erred by determining that (1) appellant’s sex- and age-discrimination claims were statutorily time-barred and fail to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and (2) appellant’s familial-status discrimination and retaliation claims failed as a matter of law. Noting that the record established that appellant’s work-from-home privileges were not an employment benefit, but rather a discretionary arrangement subject to managerial approval and certain productivity and performance benchmarks, the Court of Appeals concluded that appellant failed to show that he suffered an adverse employment action when he was required to work in-person at respondent’s office. Affirmed.

A24-1084 Henry v. Servion, Inc. (Ramsey County)

Zoning

Review

The issue in this appeal was whether a justiciable controversy was presented. Respondent neighbor sued appellants, developer and city, to obtain a declaration that the city’s approval of four variances for developer was unlawful. City and developer jointly moved for summary judgment, arguing that the District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. They argued that there was no justiciable controversy because city had amended its zoning code so the variances were no longer required. The District Court denied their motion for summary judgment, and they brought this interlocutory appeal. Then, after the parties filed their principal briefs, the city again amended its zoning code. The amendment applies retroactively and provides that “[a]ny zoning approval . . . that becomes unnecessary through the adoption of less restrictive regulations is void.” The Court of Appeals concluded that, because the plain language of the most recent amendment established that the variances respondent challenged were void, the appeal did not present a justiciable controversy. Appeal dismissed.

A24-1313 Alexander v. City of Minneapolis (Hennepin County)

Civil Order Opinions

Dismissal

Review

The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of this action for failure to allege facts supporting a claim upon which relief could be granted. Affirmed.

A24-1706 Rued v. Webber (Scott County)

Domestic Relations

Dissolution; Child Custody

Appellant appealed from a District Court judgment dissolving his marriage to respondent and awarding respondent sole legal and sole physical custody of the children and the marital homestead. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the consideration of the best interests of the children or in awarding property. Affirmed.

A24-0763 Halling v. Halling (Wright County)

Harassment Restraining Orders

Review

Respondent petitioned the District Court for a harassment restraining order (HRO) against appellant on behalf of herself and the parties’ minor children, and the District Court granted the HRO. Appellant appealed, arguing that the District Court abused its discretion by issuing the HRO. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court’s order lacked sufficient findings for meaningful appellate review. Remanded.

A24-1279 Bergman v. Bergman (Becker County)

Criminal Nonprecedential

Double Jeopardy

Mistrial

Following a hung jury on charges of harassment and the setting of a new trial date, defendant challenged the District Court’s declaration of a mistrial and argued that a retrial was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. Noting that no appellate court found the evidence against him legally insufficient, the Court of Appeals concluded that the mistrial was manifestly necessary. Affirmed.

A24-1396 State v. Baynes (Dakota County)

Evidence

Harmless Error

Defendant challenged his judgments of conviction for two counts of second-degree assault and one count of first-degree property damage following a jury trial, arguing that (1) the District Court erred by admitting the victim’s medical record, (2) the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant inflicted substantial bodily harm, and (3) the District Court abused its discretion by admitting a squad-car video of defendant talking to a deputy. Noting that the state proved that defendant inflicted one of the other types of substantial bodily harm—“temporary but substantial disfigurement” of the victim—without relying on the medical record, the Court of Appeals concluded that it did not need to determine whether the District Court’s admission of the medical record was an abuse of discretion because the admission was harmless. Affirmed.

A24-0565 State v. Beaulieu (Beltrami County)

Evidence

Plain Error

Defendant challenged her convictions of violating an order for protection (OFP) and a domestic-abuse no-contact order (DANCO), arguing that: (1) the District Court committed plain error when it admitted (a) improperly authenticated video evidence and (b) evidence that she committed other crimes; (2) the state presented insufficient evidence at trial to prove that she violated either the OFP or DANCO; and (3) she received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court of Appeals reviewed defendant’s numerous evidentiary challenges and determined that the District Court did not commit reversible plain error when it admitted video evidence and evidence that defendant committed other crimes. Furthermore, sufficient evidence supported the verdict, and trial counsel’s actions did not prejudice her. Affirmed.

A24-0829 State v. Osman (Ramsey County)

Plea Withdrawal

Intelligent

In this direct appeal from his conviction of controlled-substance crimes, defendant argued that (1) he must be permitted to withdraw his guilty pleas because they were both involuntary and unintelligent; (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (3) the District Court erred by imposing separate sentences for each of his convictions because they were part of the same behavioral incident. Noting that the District Court thoroughly explained the rights defendant was waiving by pleading guilty, and defendant repeatedly responded that he understood, the Court of Appeals concluded that defendant’s guilty pleas were intelligent and voluntary. Furthermore, defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel from his public defender and there was no error in sentencing. Affirmed.

A24-0818 State v. Torrez (Polk County)

Plea Withdrawal

Voluntariness

In this direct appeal from the judgment of conviction for fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct, defendant argued that his guilty plea was involuntary and therefore invalid. Noting that, although defendant’s statements that he had “no choice” may seem inconsistent with his statements denying threats or promises outside of the plea agreement, they did not rise to the level of negating those statements, the Court of Appeals concluded that the relevant statements were at best ambiguous and did not negate defendant’s multiple statements indicating that his guilty plea was voluntary. Affirmed.

A24-0870 State v. Burton (Anoka County)

Sentencing

Downward Departures

Defendant challenged his sentence for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing that the District Court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a downward dispositional departure. Noting the District Court’s clear explanation and findings in support of its determination that substantial and compelling circumstances for a dispositional departure were not present, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court properly exercised its discretion. Affirmed.

A24-1037 State v. Steele (Olmsted County)