Tollefsrud et al v. Solum et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Court ADOPTS IN PART and DECLINES TO ADOPT IN PART the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham dated November 19, 2013 25 as follows: the Court DE CLINES TO ADOPT Section III(D), entitled "Younger," and the second paragraph of Section IV, entitled "CONCLUSION;" and the Court ADOPTS the remainder of the Report and Recommendation. 2. Defendants Karl F. Solum and Suzanne K. Solum's Motion to Dismiss Complaint 8 is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 1/3/14. (GRR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

THOMAS TOLLEFSRUD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

v.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER
Civil File No. 13-2201 (MJD/JJG)

KARL F. SOLUM and SUZANNE K. SOLUM,
Defendants.
Karen Budd-Falen, Budd-Falen Law Offices LLC, and Jeffrey C. Thompson,
Howse & Thompson, PA, Counsel for Plaintiffs.
Jed J. Hammell, Rippe Hammell & Murphy, PLLP, Counsel for Defendants.
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham dated
November 19, 2013. Plaintiffs filed objections solely to the portion of the Report
and Recommendation recommending that some of Plaintiffs’ claims should be
dismissed pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine. Defendants did not file
any objections.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the
record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the
1

Court declines to adopt Section III(D), entitled “Younger,” and the second
paragraph of Section IV, entitled “CONCLUSION,” of the Report and
Recommendation. The Court adopts the remainder of the Report and
Recommendation.
With respect to application of Younger abstention, the Report and
Recommendation relied upon the legal standard set forth in Sprint
Communications Co., L.P. v. Jacobs, 690 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2012), to determine
that abstention was appropriate. On December 10, 2013, after the Report and
Recommendation was issued, the United States Supreme Court issued its
opinion in Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584 (2013). The
Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision applying
the Younger doctrine, held that the Eighth Circuit’s criteria for use of Younger
abstention was overly permissive, and adopted a more restrictive test for
application of the Younger doctrine. The Supreme Court held that Younger
abstention applies in only three categories of cases:
First, Younger preclude[s] federal intrusion into ongoing state
criminal prosecutions. Second, certain civil enforcement
proceedings warrant[] abstention. Finally, federal courts refrain[]
from interfering with pending civil proceedings involving certain
orders . . . uniquely in furtherance of the state courts’ ability to
perform their judicial functions.
2

Id. at 591 (citations omitted).
This case does not fall under any of the three categories. Here, there is no
ongoing state criminal prosecution. Nor is there a state civil enforcement
proceeding. Finally, the ongoing proceedings in Houston County District Court
do not involve orders uniquely in furtherance of the state court’s ability to
perform its judicial function. This third category would apply to a situation in
which, for example, a party filed suit in federal court to prevent a state court
from enforcing its own civil contempt order, see Sprint Commc’ns, Inc.,134 S. Ct.
at 592 (citing Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 336 n.12 (1977)), or to prevent
enforcement of a state’s requirement for posting bond on appeal, see id. (citing
Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 13 (1987)). Plaintiffs in this case do not
seek to interfere with the state court’s ability to perform its judicial function.
Because this case does not fall into one of the three limited categories of cases
listed in Sprint Communications, Younger abstention cannot apply.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Court ADOPTS IN PART and DECLINES TO ADOPT IN PART
the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Jeanne J. Graham dated November 19, 2013 [Docket No. 25] as follows:
3

the Court DECLINES TO ADOPT Section III(D), entitled “Younger,”
and the second paragraph of Section IV, entitled “CONCLUSION;” and
the Court ADOPTS the remainder of the Report and Recommendation
2. Defendants Karl F. Solum and Suzanne K. Solum’s Motion to
Dismiss Complaint [Docket No. 8] is DENIED.

Dated: January 3, 2014

s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
Chief Judge
United States District Court

4