Rued et al v. Hudson et al

Filing 103

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Dismissing for Lack of Jurisdiction and Imposing Sanctions.1.Plaintiffs Objection to the Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation 99 is OVERRULED.2.The Magistrate Judges Report and Recomm endation 96 is ADOPTED.3.The Complaint 1 is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.4.Defendants Motions to Dismiss 10 , 25 , 46 , and 69 are GRANTED.5.Defendant Jamie Pearsons Motion for Sanctions 75 is GRANTED in pa rt and DENIED in part, as follows:a. Plaintiffs are prohibited from filing any new lawsuits and any pleadings or other papers in the District of Minnesota concerning their disputes with any defendant whatsoever relating to this custody dispute un less (1) they are represented by counsel licensed to practice before this federal court, or (2) they obtain prior written approval from a United States District Court Judge or United States Magistrate Judge in the District of Minnesota; butb. No monetary sanctions will be imposed at this time.6.All other pending motions in this action 32 , 39 , 51 , 53 , 81 , and 88 are DENIED as moot.LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.(Written Opinion) Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on 3/11/2025. (KKM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JOSEPH DARYLL RUED; W.O.R., a minor
child; SCOTT DARYLL RUED; and LEAH
JEAN RUED,

Civil No. 24-3409 (JRT/TNL)

Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DISMISSING FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
AND IMPOSING SANCTIONS

v.
NATALIE E. HUDSON, LEONARDO
CASTRO, CARRIE LENNON, KEITH
ELLISON, ALEC SLOAN, BETH BARBOSA,
CHARLIE ALDEN, GILBERT ALDEN
BARBOSA PLLC, CATRINA M. RUED,
HENNEPIN COUNTY CLERK OF COURT,
JAMIE PEARSON, and CORNERHOUSE,
Defendants.

Joseph Daryll Rued, W.O.R., Scott Daryll Rued, and Leah Jean Rued, 9007
Avila Cove, Eden Prairie, MN 55347, pro se Plaintiffs.
Joseph D. Weiner, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, 445
Minnesota Street, Suite 1100, Saint Paul, MN 55101, for Defendants Natalie
E. Hudson, Leonardo Castro, Carrie Lennon, Keith Ellison, and Alec Sloan.
Beth Barbosa, GILBERT ALDEN BARBOSA PLLC, 3800 American Boulevard
West, Suite 1500, Edina, MN 55431, Charlie R. Alden, GILBERT ALDEN
BARBOSA PLLC, 2801 Cliff Road East, Suite 200, Burnsville, MN 55337, for
Defendants Beth Barbosa, Charlie Alden, Gilbert Alden Barbosa PLLC, and
Catrina M. Rued.
Ashley Marie Ramstad and Susan M. Tindal, IVERSON REUTERS, 9321 Ensign
Avenue South, Bloomington, MN 55438, for Defendant Jamie Pearson.
Shannon L. Bjorklund, DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP, 50 South Sixth Street, Suite
1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Defendant CornerHouse.

This is the third of four orders the Court issues simultaneously addressing the same
underlying set of facts.1 Plaintiffs here bring this action to overturn an award of sole
custody over minor W.O.R. by the Minnesota state courts. But as the Court explains in
detail in its companion order in Rued v. Jayswal, No. 24-1763 (D. Minn.), the Court lacks
jurisdiction to hear this case under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Accordingly, the Court
will adopt the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung, overrule
the Plaintiffs’ objections, and dismiss this action in its entirety with prejudice.
However, unlike in the two other cases before the Court, Defendants here have an
additional request: sanctions. (Mot. for Sanctions, Nov. 12, 2024, Docket No. 75.) Though
Defendants ask for both filing restrictions and monetary awards, the Court finds that, for
now, a filing restriction is enough to deter the vexatious behavior.
“There is no constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute an action that
is frivolous or malicious.” In re Winslow, 17 F.3d 314, 315 (10th Cir. 1994). Federal courts
have the inherent power to impose sanctions to regulate their dockets, promote judicial
efficiency, and deter frivolous filings. See, e.g., Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S.
752, 764–67 (1980); Landscape Props., Inc. v. Whisenhunt, 127 F.3d 678, 681 (8th Cir.
1997) (sanctioning plaintiff for filing a frivolous complaint). Restrictions are appropriate

1 The other cases are Rued v. Jayswal, No. 24-1763 (D. Minn.), Rued v. Hudson, No. 24-

2437 (D. Minn.), and Rued v. Hatcher, No. 25-468 (D. Minn.).

-2-

where a litigant has “engaged in a pattern of litigation activity which is manifestly
abusive.” Johnson v. Cowley, 872 F.2d 342, 344 (10th Cir. 1989). A district court may, for
example, bar litigants from any additional filings without first obtaining leave from the
Court. Feathers v. Chevron USA, Inc., 141 F.3d 264, 269 (6th Cir. 1998); see also City of
Shorewood v. Johnson, No. 11-374, 2012 WL 695855, at *4 (D. Minn. Mar. 5, 2012)
(placing plaintiff on restricted filers list for “forcing [a defendant] to respond to repetitive
claims that no appellate court has found meritorious”).
Plaintiffs’ behavior in this matter demonstrates they warrant placement on the
District of Minnesota’s restricted filers list. It has become plain to virtually every court
that has entertained Plaintiffs’ lawsuits that they have been filed maliciously and
frivolously. See, e.g., Rued v. Rued, Nos. A21-0798, A21-1064, 2022 WL 2298992, at *18
(Minn. Ct. App. June 27, 2022) (noting the finding of the district court that “[i]t is very
obvious that [Joseph] was trying to bankrupt [Catrina] in hopes that her attorney would
withdraw for nonpayment”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Therefore, the Court will place Joseph, Scott, and Leah Rued 2 on the restricted
filers list, which will prohibit them from filing additional lawsuits relating to this matter
without first receiving permission of the Court or securing the assistance of counsel. For

2 Plaintiffs often bring these suits on behalf of minor W.O.R.

The Court will not place a
minor, who is unwillingly party to this action, on a restricted filers list, especially as parties dispute
whether Plaintiffs may even file on the minor’s behalf. However, the Court clarifies that its order
extends to any attempt by Plaintiffs to circumvent its order by filing on W.O.R.’s behalf in the
future.

-3-

now, the Court will deny the motion for monetary sanctions. But the Court warns the
Rueds that if this behavior continues, future courts may well consider such an action
appropriate.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that
1. Plaintiffs’ Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
[Docket No. 99] is OVERRULED.
2. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 96] is
ADOPTED.
3. The Complaint [Docket No. 1.] is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of
jurisdiction.
4. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [Docket Nos. 10, 25, 46, and 69] are
GRANTED.
5. Defendant Jamie Pearson’s Motion for Sanctions [Docket No. 75] is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:
a. Plaintiffs are prohibited from filing any new lawsuits and any
pleadings or other papers in the District of Minnesota concerning
their disputes with any defendant whatsoever relating to this
custody dispute unless (1) they are represented by counsel licensed
to practice before this federal court, or (2) they obtain prior written
-4-

approval from a United States District Court Judge or United States
Magistrate Judge in the District of Minnesota; but
b. No monetary sanctions will be imposed at this time.
6. All other pending motions in this action [Docket Nos. 32, 39, 51, 53, 81, and
88] are DENIED as moot.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

DATED: March 11, 2025
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.

JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge

-5-