Mallak v. Aitkin County et al

Filing 212

ORDER. 1. Plaintiff Brook Mallak's appeal (Doc. No. 196 ) of Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois's March 4, 2015 Order is OVERRULED. 2. Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois's March 4, 2015 Order (Doc. No. 193 ) is AFFIRMED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 5/13/2015. (BJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Brook Mallak,

Civil No. 13-2119 (DWF/LIB)
Plaintiff,

v.
City of Brainerd; Cass County; Crow Wing County;
City of Fridley; Central Minnesota Community
Corrections; City of Staples; City of St. Cloud;
City of Staples; Chad Visser, acting in his
individual capacity as an Officer of the Baxter
Police Department; Julie McCullough, acting in
her individual capacity as an employee of the
Brainerd Police Department; Joel Reed, acting
in his individual capacity as an Officer of the
Brainerd Police Department; Anthony Runde,
acting in his individual capacity as an Officer
of the Brainerd Police Department; Perry Jones,
acting in his individual capacity as a Detective
for the Fridley Police Department; David Darling,
acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of
the St. Cloud Police Department; Tyler Burke,
acting in his individual capacity as an employee
of the Crow Wing County Sheriff’s Office;
Amy Edberg, acting in her individual capacity
as an employee of the Crow Wing County
Sheriff’s Department; Ryan Goff, acting in his
individual capacity as a corrections officer for
the Crow Wing County Sheriff’s Office and in
his individual capacity as an Officer of the City
of Staples Police Department; Gary Gutenkauf,
acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of
the Crow Wing County Sheriff’s Office; Ginger
Heurung, acting in her individual capacity as a
corrections officer for the Crow Wing County
Sheriff’s Office; Derek Lavoy, acting in his
individual capacity as an investigator for the
Crow Wing County Sheriff’s Office; Illissa

ORDER

Ramm, acting in her individual capacity as an
Assistant County Attorney in the Crow Wing
County Attorney’s Office; Michael Tripplet,
acting in his individual capacity as a corrections
officer for the Crow Wing County Sheriff’s
Office; Karri Turcotte, acting in her individual
capacity as an employee of the Crow Wing
County Sheriff’s Office; Jon Vukelich, acting
in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the
Crow Wing County Sheriff’s Office; Ryan
Barnett, acting in his individual capacity as an
employee of Central Minnesota Community
Corrections; Dawn Chouinard, acting in her
individual capacity as an employee of Central
Minnesota Community Corrections; Shannon
Wussow, acting in her individual capacity as an
employee of Central Minnesota Community
Corrections; Colleen Berens; Laura Johnson;
Lori Lucas; Christine Madsen; Joan Smith;
John and Jane Does (1 - 500) acting in their
individual capacity as supervisors, officers,
deputies, staff, investigators, employees or
agents of the other law-enforcement agencies;
and Entity Does (1-50) including cities, counties,
municipalities, and other entities sited in
Minnesota and federal departments and agencies,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Brook Mallak’s (“Plaintiff”)
objections to Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s March 4, 2015 Order (Doc. No. 193)
insofar as it denies joinder of certain law-enforcement personnel. (Doc. No. 196.) On
April 1, 2015, Defendants Crow Wing County and Cass County (“County Defendants”)
filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. No. 203), and Defendants

2

Tyler Burke, Amy Edberg, Ryan Goff, Gary Gutenkauf, Ginger Heurung, Erek Lavoy,
Ilissa Ramm, Michael Triplett, Karri Turcotte, and Jon Vukelich (“Individual County
Defendants”) also filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. No. 204).
The Court must modify or set aside any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s order
found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a); D.Minn. LR 72.2(a). This is an “extremely deferential standard.” Reko v.
Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1007 (D. Minn. 1999). “A finding is
‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on
the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” Chakales v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 79 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 1996)
(quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). The
Court denies Plaintiff’s objections and affirms Magistrate Judge Brisbois’s March 4, 2015
Order in all respects.
In his Order, Magistrate Judge Brisbois ruled on three types of proposed
amendments to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Magistrate Judge Brisbois allowed two types of
amendments and declined to allow the third type of amendment relating to certain new
defendants. Plaintiff only objects to the portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Order that
declines to allow Plaintiff to amend her Complaint to add Rhonda Kraus (“Kraus”), Janet
Wedan (“Wedan”), and Sherburne County, their employer, as defendants and to add the
corresponding allegations against them. Magistrate Judge Brisbois reasoned that the

3

accesses allegedly conducted by Kraus, Wedan, and Sherburne County were not
referenced in Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s original Complaint and that therefore their addition
would constitute more than the mere substitution of known individuals for existing Doe
Defendants. Magistrate Judge Brisbois also stated that Plaintiff was, in fact, attempting
to join new defendants and add previously unalleged accesses associated with those
defendants, which he would not allow. Magistrate Judge Brisbois further found that
joinder of those new defendants was improper because Plaintiff did not explicitly move
the Court for leave to join them and, additionally, that permissive joinder was not
applicable in this case pursuant to his Rule 20 analysis.
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Order arguing that, in light of the
“liberal” standard favoring amendment under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the proposed amendments are reasonable and necessary and should therefore
be allowed in their entirety. Plaintiff further argues that contrary to Magistrate Judge
Brisbois’s order, joinder is not necessary to add the three new defendants and the claims
against them; however, Plaintiff argues that if joinder is necessary, joinder also tracks the
“liberal standard of amendment” and should therefore be allowed. Finally, Plaintiff
asserts that this Court already ruled that joinder of similar defendants was appropriate in
Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act (“DPPA”) cases when it held that severance was
inappropriate at the motion to dismiss stage in two other cases.

4

County Defendants counter that Plaintiff appears to improperly seek a motion for
reconsideration and therefore fails to establish that the Magistrate Judge’s Order was
either clearly erroneous or contrary to law in any way. Individual County Defendants
reiterate the arguments of County Defendants and also argue that Plaintiff’s objections
apply the wrong standards by relying on Rule 15 of the Civil Rules of Federal Procedure
rather than Rules 16 and 20.
The Court finds that Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s March 4, 2015 Order is
neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. In light of the “extremely deferential
standard” to be applied by this Court when examining objections, see Reko,
70 F. Supp. 2d at 1007, the Court cannot say a mistake has been committed in this case,
see Chakales, 79 F.3d at 728. Magistrate Judge Brisbois properly found that Wedan,
Kraus, and Sherburne County are “entirely new Defendants” (emphasis in original) and
that the Court could summarily deny Plaintiff the opportunity to add them due to
Plaintiff’s failure to move for joinder. Magistrate Judge Brisbois then evaluated the
joinder of Wedan, Kraus, and Sherburne County “out of an abundance of caution” and, in
doing so, fully examined the two requirements for permissible joinder under Rule 20
when finding that permissive joinder was inapplicable. (See Doc. No. 193.) Whether or
not this Court would have permitted joinder, Magistrate Judge Brisbois’s conclusion that
the allegations against Wedan, Kraus, and Sherburne County fail to meet the “same
transaction connection or occurrence” requirement of Rule 20 in this case was not clearly

5

erroneous. Thus, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections and affirms Magistrate Judge
Brisbois’s Order in all respects.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff Brook Mallak’s appeal (Doc. No. [196]) of Magistrate Judge Leo I.

Brisbois’s March 4, 2015 Order is OVERRULED.
2.

Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s March 4, 2015 Order (Doc. No. [193]) is

AFFIRMED.
Dated: May 13, 2015

s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge

6