Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 01-25-2019
Case Style:
Case Number: A17-1539
Judge: Natalie E. Hudson
Court: STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT
Plaintiff's Attorney: Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Louis K. Robards, Assistant County Attorney
Defendant's Attorney: Ryan Simatic
Eric J. Magnuson
Ryan Marth
Kevin D. Collado
for amicus curiae Minnesota State Bar Association Appellate Practice Section
Description:
Tulsa Contract Legal Secretarial Services
In May 2012, the County filed a condemnation petition with the district court to
acquire the Bhaktas’ Brooklyn Park motel as part of a project to upgrade an adjacent county
road. The district court granted title and possession of the property to the County and
appointed three commissioners to determine the damages owed by the County for the
property. Subsequently the County made a quick-take payment of $765,443 for the
Bhaktas’ property.1 In October 2014, the commissioners determined that the amount of
1 Minnesota Statutes § 117.042 (2018), the “quick-take” statute, allows an entity exercising eminent domain to take title to and possession of property before a court files
3
just compensation for the taking was $760,000. The Bhaktas appealed the commissioners’
decision to the district court, where the main issue was the minimum compensation the
Bhaktas were owed under Minn. Stat. § 117.187 (2018).
Trial was scheduled for April 4, 2017. On March 21, 2017, the Bhaktas filed five
written motions in limine. These motions included requests to exclude the County’s
written minimum-compensation analysis and any testimony about minimum
compensation, including testimony by the County’s minimum-compensation consultant.2
The motions in limine were thoroughly briefed: the Bhaktas filed each of the five motions
separately; the County responded to each motion in writing; the Bhaktas filed replies; the
County filed an additional responsive brief addressing all five motions; and finally, the
Bhaktas moved to strike the County’s additional response as improper and filed a sur-reply
supporting the five motions.
On the morning of trial, but before the jury was selected, the district court heard
argument on the motions in limine. Before trial started, the court denied all five motions,
and the challenged evidence was admitted at trial. The jury returned a verdict of $810,000
for the Bhaktas, more than the quick-take payment of $765,443. The district court initially
an award determining the value of the property. Under the statute, the entity exercising eminent domain must give 90-days’ notice to the property owners and either pay to the owners or deposit with the court an amount equal to the appraised value of the property.
2 The parties dispute whether the written minimum-compensation document was a report or an analysis for purposes of complying with Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.01(b) and 37.03(a), but that dispute is not relevant to the issue before us. We refer to the document as an “analysis” (as did the district court) without expressing any opinion on the merits of the parties’ dispute.
4
entered judgment for the difference. But the court subsequently vacated that judgment and
entered a new judgment for $0 after granting the County’s motion to offset delinquent
utility charges and real estate taxes owed by the Bhaktas but paid by the County. The
Bhaktas did not move for a new trial. Instead, they appealed the judgment on several
grounds, including the denial of the motions in limine.
In a published special term opinion, the court of appeals dismissed the portion of
the appeal challenging the district court’s denial of the motions in limine to exclude the
minimum-compensation analysis and the testimony of the city assessor. Cty. of Hennepin
v. Bhakta, 907 N.W.2d 908, 912 (Minn. App. 2017). The court of appeals held that, to
preserve those rulings for appellate review, the Bhaktas were first required to assign the
rulings as error in a motion for a new trial in the district court. Id.
The court of appeals concluded that orders on pretrial procedural motions in limine
fall within the general rule of Sauter v. Wasemiller, 389 N.W.2d 200 (Minn. 1986). Bhakta,
907 N.W.2d at 912. Under the Sauter rule, the court reasoned, parties must move for a
new trial to preserve issues that arise during the course of trial. Id. at 910 (citing Sauter,
389 N.W.2d at 201). The court also relied on Sauter to conclude that issues “that arise
during the course of trial” include “pretrial evidentiary rulings.” Id. When no motion for
a new trial has been made, review of the judgment is limited to “substantive questions of
law.” Id. at 911 (quoting Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minn.,
664 N.W.2d 303, 311 (Minn. 2003)).
Ultimately, the court of appeals concluded that the objections to the minimum
compensation analysis and the testimony of the city assessor were procedural, rather than
5
substantive, and therefore, the Sauter rule precluded appellate review of these issues. Id.
at 912. In reaching this conclusion the court of appeals relied on Tyroll v. Private Label
Chemicals, Inc., 505 N.W.2d 54 (Minn. 1993), which involved an appeal of a pretrial order
denying a request for a jury, rather than a bench, trial. The court of appeals observed that
in Tyroll, we “did not hold that the Sauter rule was inapplicable because the order denying
appellant’s motion for a jury trial was made before, rather than during, the trial.” Bhakta,
907 N.W.2d at 911. Rather, we “held that the Sauter rule did not apply because a ruling
on the right to a jury trial is more than a procedural matter.” Id.
The court of appeals also concluded that the general policy reasons undergirding the
Sauter rule apply with equal force to pretrial motions: requiring a motion for a new trial
may eliminate the need for appellate review or facilitate development of the record. Id. at
912. “Whether the district court rules on an evidentiary issue before or during trial, a
motion for a new trial gives the district court the opportunity to reconsider the ruling in the
context of the entire trial and the effect that the ruling might have had on the outcome of
the litigation.” Id. The court of appeals held that “the Sauter rule applies to the district
court’s discretionary pretrial rulings on evidentiary issues.” Id. Accordingly, the court
dismissed the part of the appeal challenging the district court’s denial of the motions in
limine to exclude the minimum-compensation analysis and the testimony of the city
assessor.
We granted the Bhaktas’ petition for review. Subsequently, the court of appeals
stayed the remaining portion of the appeal pending resolution of the issue before us.
6
ANALYSIS
Matters of trial procedure, evidentiary rulings, and jury instructions occurring at
trial are subject to appellate review only if they are assigned as error in a motion for a new
trial. See Sauter, 389 N.W.2d at 201. This appeal requires us to determine whether the
Sauter rule applies in the context of a pretrial order on a motion to exclude evidence when
that motion has been fully briefed, argued, and decided. The interpretation of procedural
rules, including the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, is a question of law that we review
de novo. Crowley v. Meyer, 897 N.W.2d 288, 292 (Minn. 2017).
The Bhaktas contend that they were not required to move for a new trial to preserve
appellate review of the orders on the motions in limine because the Sauter rule applies only
to rulings made during trial, not to pretrial orders. They argue that a plain reading of Sauter,
including the language “at trial,” “during trial,” and “during the course of trial,” supports
their position that the rule does not extend to pretrial matters. See Sauter, 389 N.W.2d at
201–02. The Bhaktas argue that our decision in Alpha Real Estate also supports their
position, because in that case we distinguished between matters arising at trial and those
that are “fully briefed and argued.” See Alpha Real Estate, 664 N.W.2d at 310.
The County argues that matters raised “during the course of trial” include, as a
practical matter, orders on motions in limine, and, therefore, the Bhaktas were required to
bring a motion for a new trial to preserve their challenges to the district court’s orders
denying those motions. The County contends that such pretrial rulings are functionally
rulings on issues “at trial,” and deciding them in advance “does not change their nature.”
According to the County, the Bhaktas’ interpretation creates an arbitrary distinction
7
between objections to evidentiary trial rulings made just before trial and those made after
jury selection. The County also argues that the policy considerations behind the Sauter
rule support its position. By giving the district court the opportunity to reconsider its
rulings, the County asserts, motions for new trial facilitate better development of the record
before appellate review or eliminate the need for appellate review altogether. The County
further argues that the Bhaktas’ interpretation would lead to a decrease in motions for new
trial and an increase in appeals, hampering judicial economy.
The Minnesota State Bar Association Appellate Practice Section (“the Section”)
filed an amicus brief “to aid the court in developing a clear and workable rule to guide
lower courts and future litigants.” The Section advocates that the court “adopt a bright line
rule that limits the Sauter requirement to challenges to rulings made by the trial court
during trial.”
An overview of the applicable rules guides our analysis. Rule 103.04 of the
Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure provides the scope of review for appellate
courts. Under the rule, “[t]he scope of review afforded may be affected by whether proper
steps have been taken to preserve issues for review on appeal, including the existence of
timely and proper post-trial motions.” Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.04. This sentence was
added in an amendment effective January 1, 1999 to help litigants recognize the importance
of post-trial motions, because failure to bring post-trial motions was a “significant,
recurring problem.” Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.04 comm. cmt.—1998 amendment. The
rule is silent, however, on when post-trial motions are necessary.
8
Rule 59 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs motions for new
trial, gives examples of situations in which a new trial may be granted. But this rule is
likewise silent on whether a motion for a new trial is required to preserve an appeal from
an order on a motion in limine. Minn. R. Civ. P. 59.01.
Our precedent, however, does provide guidance on when motions for new trial are
required: “[i]t has long been the general rule that matters such as trial procedure,
evidentiary rulings and jury instructions are subject to appellate review only if there has
been a motion for a new trial in which such matters have been assigned as error.” Sauter,
389 N.W.2d at 201. A motion for a new trial is helpful because it “provides both trial court
and counsel with a unique opportunity to eliminate the need for appellate review or to more
fully develop critical aspects of the record in the event appellate review is sought.” Id. In
short, the rule promotes judicial efficiency.
Notably, Sauter uses the phrases “occurring at trial,” “during the course of trial,”
and “during trial,” which strongly suggest that we did not consider the rule to apply to
pretrial matters or rulings.3 Id. at 201–02. In addition, when objections are made during
trial, “the court must make quick, on-the-spot decisions.” Alpha Real Estate, 664 N.W.2d
at 310. But in the case of pretrial orders, the parties provide the court with notice, written
motions, and briefs in advance of trial. See Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.03–.04. The issues
are explained, and the district court typically has time to reflect on them. Here, the motions
3 We need not reach the issue of when a trial “begins” for purposes of this rule, because the parties agree that trial had not yet begun when the motions in question were made and decided.
9
in limine were brought 2 weeks before trial and were thoroughly briefed and argued; thus,
the district court should have had time to reflect on the motions and supporting briefs before
the trial itself. We agree with the court of appeals that, in general, requiring litigants to
move for a new trial “give[s] the district court the opportunity to consider the context of
the objection and the effect that the alleged error may have had on the outcome of the case.”
Bhakta, 907 N.W.2d at 911. We conclude, however, that, because motions in limine are
fully briefed and argued, and because the district court has time for reflection before
making pretrial decisions, little additional benefit is gained from a second review by the
district court. The animating goal of the Sauter rule—thoughtful, reflective decision
making by the district court—is largely achieved in the context of orders on motions in
limine that are fully briefed, argued, and decided before trial.4
4 The Sauter rule originated in the early twentieth century, when pretrial motions were far less common. See, e.g., Smith v. Gray Motor Co., 210 N.W. 618, 619 (Minn. 1926); Bosch v. Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 155 N.W. 202, 203 (Minn. 1915). Since that time, the practice of law has changed. 23 Ronald I. Meshbesher & James B. Sheehy, Minnesota Practice—Minnesota Trial Handbook for Minnesota Lawyers § 13:20 (2017) (“The motion in limine is a departure from the traditional practice of ruling on challenges to the admissibility of evidence at the time it is offered.”). Pretrial motions are now encouraged and governed by specific rules that require notice and briefing, which provide the district court more opportunity to reflectively consider them. Id., § 4.16 (“Since most courts will appreciate an opportunity to avoid [rulings without adequate time to consider all authorities and ramifications], in limine motions are generally encouraged. These motions also tend to provide a better record than may be made in the heat and hurry of trial.”). Moreover, the federal rules do not require motions for a new trial to preserve issues for appeal. 11 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2818 (3d ed. 2012). For these reasons, we refer to the Advisory Committee on the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure the question of whether Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.04 should be amended to supersede Sauter v. Wasemiller or otherwise clarified regarding when a motion for a new trial is required to preserve an issue for appellate review.
10
The court of appeals relied on Tyroll to extend the Sauter rule. See 907 N.W.2d at
911–12 (discussing Tyroll, 505 N.W.2d 54, 57). Like this case, Tyroll involved pretrial
rulings—there, a ruling denying a jury trial and calculating damages. 505 N.W.2d at 56.
Our decision in Tyroll did not turn on whether the appealed rulings occurred “at trial,”
however. Instead, we held that the right to a jury trial is a constitutional right relating “not
to how a case is to be tried before the decisionmaker, but who is to be the decisionmaker.”
Id. at 57. We concluded that the appealed rulings involved “more than a procedural
matter.” Id. Therefore, a party could raise the issue on appeal without first bringing a
motion for a new trial. Id. The court of appeals noted that Tyroll “did not hold that the
Sauter rule was inapplicable because the order denying appellants’ motion for a jury trial
was made before, rather than during, the trial.” Bhakta, 907 N.W.2d at 911. That is true.
But Tyroll is nevertheless inapposite because we did not reach the issue of whether pretrial
motions fall within the Sauter rule. We therefore reject the court of appeals’ conclusion
that Tyroll extended the Sauter rule to pretrial orders on motions in limine.
In sum, our precedent and the judicial efficiency policies underlying that precedent
support a conclusion that Sauter does not apply to pretrial orders on motions in limine.
Accordingly, we hold that pretrial orders on motions in limine are appealable regardless of
whether those orders have been assigned as error in a motion for a new trial. The Sauter
rule continues to apply to motions brought or decided during trial.
Outcome: For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: