Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 09-16-2024
Case Style:
Paul Hansmeier v. Tobies Enterprises
Case Number: 58-Cv-23-545
Judge: Not Available
Court: District Court, Pine County, Minnesota
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Erik T. Salveson, Kelly P. Magnus
Description:
Pine City, Minnesota civil rights lawyer represented the Plaintiff.
In March 2022, Hansmeier initiated a civil action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2018 &Supp. IV 2022), and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.01-.50 (2022 &Supp. 2023) against Tobies and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland (the ADA action). Tobies removed the ADA action to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Less than a week later, the federal district court issued an order dismissing the case as frivolous. The order described the ADA action as "typical" of Hansmeier's "vexatious" pattern of litigation. In addition to dismissing the ADA action, the federal district court "certified that any appeal from the dismissal of this action would not be taken in good faith," and imposed filing restrictions on Hansmeier.
Fourteen months later, Hansmeier moved to vacate the federal district court's order dismissing the ADA action as frivolous. In response, Tobies filed a letter with the chief judge for the federal district court. The letter asked the chief judge to summarily deny Hansmeier's motion because it was untimely and raised the same arguments the federal district court rejected when it dismissed the ADA action. In the letter, Tobies stated that "Hansmeier is seeking to perpetrate the same illegal conduct that caused him to be convicted and sentenced to serve time in federal prison." The federal district court summarily denied Hansmeier's motion to vacate.
In September 2023, Hansmeier initiated this lawsuit when he served Tobies with a complaint. In the complaint, Hansmeier alleged that Tobies defamed him in its letter to the chief judge. Hansmeier also sought a declaration that his assertion of the claims in the ADA action did "not come within the scope of the offenses defined by the Minnesota Criminal Code" or, alternatively, "that the Minnesota Criminal Code," as applied to Hansmeier, violates article I, section 8, of the Minnesota Constitution. Finally, Hansmeier sought "an injunction prohibiting Tobies from enforcing the Minnesota Criminal Code's civil or criminal remedies against Hansmeier."
In October 2023, Tobies filed this case in the Washington County District Court and moved to dismiss the complaint under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e). Tobies argued the district court should dismiss the defamation claim because, as relevant here, Tobies was entitled to absolute privilege for the allegedly defamatory statement made by its attorney during a judicial proceeding. With respect to the declaratory-judgment claim, Tobies argued Hansmeier failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because Hansmeier failed to allege a bona fide legal interest, failed to allege a genuine conflict of tangible interests, and requested relief that was not capable of specific resolution through declaratory judgment.
On October 25, 2023, Tobies served Hansmeier with a letter, informing Hansmeier that it intended to file motions for sanctions against Hansmeier under Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 9 and Minn. R. Civ. P. 11 if he did not withdraw his complaint within 21 days. The letter stated that Hansmeier's claims were "without basis in law," and enclosed copies of Tobies's draft motions.
In November 2023, the Washington County District Court transferred venue to Pine County District Court. Hansmeier served Tobies with an amended complaint. On November 20, 2023, Tobies moved to dismiss the amended complaint, asserting that Hansmeier was not free to amend the complaint without leave of the court or Tobies's written consent. In addition, Tobies asserted that its briefing for its original motion to dismiss continued to justify dismissal. The same day, Tobies filed two motions to sanction Hansmeier under rule 9 and rule 11.
The district court held a hearing on the motions. Hansmeier did not order a transcript of the motion hearing. At the conclusion of argument, the district court orally granted Tobies's motion to dismiss and took the motions for sanctions under advisement. The district court filed its written order granting Tobies's motion to dismiss and dismissing Hansmeier's amended complaint with prejudice the same day. The district court subsequently issued its order granting Tobies's motions for sanctions.
Outcome: Affirmed
Hansmeier v. Tobies Enters., A24-0392 (Minn. App. Sep 16, 2024)
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: