Hunter v. Emigrant Residential, LLC

Filing 21

ORDER cancelling 11 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Emigrant Residential, LLC. If Emigrant wishes to proceed with its Motion to Dismiss after the Minnesota Court of Appeals issues its ruling on Hunter's appeal, Emigrant shall refile the motion with the Court by September 1, 2015 (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 04/21/2015. (TLU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Margaret Ann Hunter,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
Civil Case No. 15-483 ADM/JSM

v.
Emigrant Residential, LLC,
Defendant.

Eric G. Nasstrom, Esq., Morrison Sund PLLC, Minnetonka, MN, on behalf of Plaintiff.
Michael R. Sauer, Esq., Wilford Geske & Cook, P.A., Woodbury, MN, on behalf of Defendant.

This matter is before the undersigned United States District Court Judge on Defendant
Emigrant Residential, LLC’s (“Emigrant”) Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 11]. Upon reviewing
the parties’ briefing, it is apparent that claims asserted in this lawsuit are currently also the
subject of a pending Motion to Amend in a parallel state court action [Case No. A14-1599]
involving the same parties and the same mortgage foreclosure sale at issue here. Specifically,
Hunter seeks to add claims in her state action for breach of contract related to the foreclosure
sale and for declaratory judgment regarding the actual balance owed on the note.
The state district court originally denied the motion to amend, but Hunter appealed the
ruling. The appeal is currently scheduled to be heard on May 20, 2015, and an opinion will be
issued within 90 days thereafter. Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, Subd. 3.
In its Motion to Dismiss, Emigrant argues that the doctrine of comity prevents the Court
from evaluating Hunter’s claims. See Aaron v. Target Corp., 357 F.3d 768, 774 (8th Cir. 2004)
(“Under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed 2d 669 (1971), federal courts
should abstain from exercising jurisdiction in cases where equitable relief would interfere with

pending state proceedings in a way that offends principles of comity and federalism.”). This
issue will necessarily be clarified once the Minnesota Court of Appeals issues a ruling on
Hunter’s appeal (i.e., whether Hunter’s proposed amendments will be heard on the merits in
Minnesota state court). Therefore, it is appropriate to temporarily postpone adjudication on
Emigrant’s Motion to Dismiss. Based upon the foregoing, and all the files, records, and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

The hearing scheduled for April 21, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. on Emigrant’s Motion to
Dismiss [Docket No. 11] is cancelled.

2.

If Emigrant wishes to proceed with its Motion to Dismiss after the Minnesota
Court of Appeals issues its ruling on Hunter’s appeal, Emigrant shall refile the
motion with the Court by September 1, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

s/Ann D. Montgomery
ANN D. MONTGOMERY
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 21, 2015.

2