Court of Appeals Digest: Sept. 29, 2025

Civil Nonprecedential

Consumer Protection

Standing

In this interlocutory appeal involving multiple entities that purport to represent drivers for ridesharing companies, appellants contested a District Court order denying in part their motion to dismiss under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02. Appellants argued that respondents lacked standing to bring claims under the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act (CFA). Noting that respondents described themselves as current or former rideshare drivers who were part of the association who paid fees to become members of the association, the Court of Appeals concluded that respondents alleged a sufficient basis for standing in their complaint. Affirmed.

A25-0456 Badel v. Minn. Uber/Lyft Drivers Assoc. (Hennepin County)

Domestic Relations

Dissolution; Judgment

In this dispute that followed the dissolution of the parties’ marriage, pro se appellant-father appeared to challenge the District Court’s (1) denial of his motion to amend the dissolution judgment and decree, (2) award of conduct-based attorney fees to respondent-mother, and (3) granting of mother’s motion to modify custody to award her sole legal custody of the parties’ son. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not err by denying father’s motion for an amended judgment, and there was no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s decisions to award conduct-based attorney fees and to modify legal custody of the parties’ son. Affirmed.

A25-0059 Rzeczkowski v. Borrero (Hennepin County)

Education

Teacher Licenses

In this interlocutory appeal, appellant licensing board challenged the District Court’s order denying its motion to dismiss an action by respondent, who held a short-call substitute-teacher license. Appellant, argued that the District Court erred by denying its motion to dismiss three counts of respondent’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Appellant further argued that the District Court erred by declining to dismiss four counts for failure to state a claim because respondent waived judicial review of all four counts. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over three counts because respondent failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. But the Court declined to reach appellant’s argument regarding waiver—which challenged all counts—because that argument was not within the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Reversed and remanded.

A25-0368 Haik v. Pro. Educator Licensing & Standards Bd. (Ramsey County)

Public Employees

Death Benefits

A firefighter passed away six years after retiring, and his surviving spouse sought a death benefit designated for public safety officers killed in the line of duty. An administrative law judge denied her benefit request. Acknowledging the evidence that decedent’s firefighting career contributed to his early passing, the Court of Appeals concluded that his heart attack was clearly not sustained in the line of duty, as the statute defining the term killed in the line of duty was controlling. Affirmed.

A25-0443 In re Denial of Death Benefits for Jones (Office of Admin. Hearings)

Criminal Nonprecedential

Juveniles

Restitution

This appeal centered on appellant’s failure to timely serve his restitution affidavit, resulting in the District Court’s denial of his request for a contested hearing and subsequent restitution order. Appellant, a juvenile who received a stay of adjudication for motor-vehicle theft, argued that the District Court erred by concluding that it could not conduct the hearing because he failed to timely serve his restitution affidavit. He further asserted that his attorney’s failure to timely serve a restitution affidavit was ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not err in its refusal to hold the contested restitution hearing and the failure to comply with the affidavit deadline was not ineffective assistance of counsel. Affirmed.

A25-0353 In re Welfare of C.L.B. (Hennepin County)

Sentencing

Downward Departures

In this appeal from a judgment of conviction for controlled-substance possession, defendant argued that the District Court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a downward dispositional departure and imposed a sentence at the top of the presumptive sentencing range. The Court of Appeals concluded that defendant’s appearance at sentencing despite being subject to an active arrest warrant did not constitute a circumstance so compelling that it rendered the District Court’s imposition of the presumptive sentence an abuse of discretion. Affirmed.

A24-1843 State v. Drahos (Olmsted County)