G&I VIII WF Plaza LLC v. Cnty. of Hennepin
| Decision Date | 10 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 27-CV-21-11021,27-CV-21-2321,27-CV-20-907 |
| Court | Tax Court of Minnesota |
| Parties | G&I VIII WF Plaza LLC, Petitioner, v. County of Hennepin, Respondent. |
These matters came before the Honorable Bradford S. Delapena, Judge of the Minnesota Tax Court, on petitioner G&I VIII WF Plaza LLC's motion to consolidate.
Thomas R. Wilhelmy and Gauri S. Samant, Fredrikson & Byron P.A., represent petitioner G&I VIII WF Plaza LLC.
Jeffrey M. Wojciechowski and Rebecca L.S. Holschuh, Assistant County Attorneys, represent respondent Hennepin County.
Petitioner G&I VIII WF Plaza LLC moves to consolidate three valuation cases (Pay-20, Pay-21, and Pay-22) for a single property, and to place the consolidated matter on the existing Scheduling Order for the Pay-20 case. Respondent Hennepin County objects to consolidation solely with respect to the Pay-22 matter, arguing that the Pay-20 litigation deadlines would prevent it from properly preparing its Pay-22 case. We grant G&I's motion as to the Pay-20 and Pay-21 petitions but deny it as to the Pay-22 petition.
Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, the court now makes the following:
ORDER1. Petitioner G&I VIII WF Plaza LLC s motion to consolidate is granted with respect to the Pay-20 and Pay-21 petitions (File Nos. 27-CV-20-907 and 27-CV-21-2321) but is denied with respect to the Pay-22 petition (File No. 27-CV-21-11021).
2. The consolidated Pay-20 and Pay-21 matter shall proceed in accordance with the February 1, 2021 Scheduling Order for the Pay-20 case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
On January 14, 2020, Petitioner G&I VIII WF Plaza LLC filed a property tax petition challenging the assessor's estimated market value as of January 2, 2019 (for taxes payable in 2020) for a property located in Bloomington, Minnesota.[1] On February 1, 2021, the court filed a Scheduling Order for the Pay-20 matter (File No. 27-CV-20-907), establishing numerous litigation and trial preparation deadlines.[2] As relevant here, the Order required the parties: (1) to complete service of written discovery requests by October 1, 2021, [3] and (2) to exchange written appraisal reports by November 29, 2021.[4] Like all of the court's standard scheduling orders of this vintage, the Pay-20 Order furnished the parties approximately eight months to complete service of discovery and ten months to prepare and exchange appraisal reports.
G&I subsequently filed two additional property tax petitions pertaining to the same property. Approximately eight months ago, on February 26, 2021, G&I filed a petition challenging the assessor's estimated market value as of January 2, 2020, for taxes payable in 2021 (File No. 27-CV-21-2321).[5] And approximately eight weeks ago, on September 9, 2021, G&I filed a petition challenging the assessor's estimated market value as of January 2, 2021, for taxes payable in 2022 (File No. 27-CV-21-11021).[6] The court has not filed a scheduling order for either of these additional cases.
Seven days after filing its petition in the Pay-22 matter, on September 16, 2021, G&I filed a motion to consolidate the Pay-20, Pay-21, and Pay-22 petitions, and to place the consolidated matter on the Scheduling Order for the Pay-20 case.[7] Respondent Hennepin County does not object to consolidation of the Pay-20 and Pay-21 petitions.[8] It opposes inclusion of the Pay-22 petition, however, arguing that the deadlines contained in the Pay-20 Scheduling Order would deprive it of an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery and to prepare its case.[9] The County also notes that the commercial real estate market was likely affected during calendar year 2020 by the COVID-19 pandemic, and conjectures that data quantifying that impact (and thus relevant to the January 2, 2021 valuation date for taxes payable in 2022) is likely to improve over time.[10]
The Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure "govern the procedures in the Tax Court, where practicable." Minn. Stat. § 271.06, subd. 7 (2020). Those rules specifically address consolidation:
When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
Minn. R. Civ. P. 42.01. The tax court generally favors consolidation "for the sake of judicial economy." Zirp-IC, L.L.C. v. Cnty. of Hennepin, No. 29185, 2003 WL 21729716, at *4 (Minn. T.C. July 3, 2003). This preference must yield, however, "when consolidation would substantially prejudice one of the parties." Compare TREA Bridges Apartments LLC v. Cnty. of Hennepin, No. 27-CV-18-07436 et al., 2020 WL 927444, at *1 (Minn. T.C. Feb. 19, 2020) (), and HSRE Station on Washington LLC v. Cnty. of Hennepin, No. 27-CV-18-07000 et. al., 2019 WL 5682777, at *2 (Minn. T.C. Oct. 25, 2019) (), with Enbridge Energy, Ltd. P'ship v. Cnty. of Marshall, No. C5-03-133, 2004 WL 434420, at *1, *3 (Minn. T.C. Feb. 27, 2004) ().
The County does not object to consolidation of the Pay-20 and Pay-21 petitions.[11] Consequently, we grant G&I's motion as to those matters. For the following reasons, we decline to include the Pay-22 petition in the consolidation.
The Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure must be administered "to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action." Minn. R. Civ. P. 1. Here, speed must yield to justice.
The court's standard scheduling order furnishes parties with approximately eight months to formulate and serve written discovery, and ten months to prepare and exchange written appraisal reports.[12] Reasonable minds could debate whether these periods are ideal, but they provide context for evaluating G&I's motion.
G&I filed the Pay-22 petition on September 9, 2021.[13] Seven days later, on September 16, 2021, it filed a motion to consolidate the Pay-20, Pay-21, and Pay-22 petitions, and to place the consolidated matter on the Scheduling Order for the Pay-20 case.[14] Based on the deadlines contained in that Scheduling Order, G&I asks us to afford the County approximately 22 days to formulate and serve discovery, and approximately 81 days to prepare and serve its written appraisal report. Given the County's opposition, and particularly its concern that the January 2, 2021 valuation for taxes payable in 2022 will likely be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic (and therefore might entail a heightened need for investigation and discovery), we conclude that these periods would be unreasonably short and would prejudice the County.[15]
In opposing consolidation of the Pay-22 petition, the County cites and analyzes two recent decisions[16] indicating that this court's general preference for consolidation of matters involving the same subject property must yield when combining a later petition with an earlier one-on the earlier case's schedule-would create unreasonably restrictive deadlines for the later case. See TREA Bridges, 2020 WL 927444, at *1; HSRE Station, 2019 WL 5682777, at *2. Although G&I filed an extensive reply memorandum, it neither distinguishes nor even cites these recent decisions, [17] which we consider controlling.
For the foregoing reasons, we decline to include the Pay-22 petition in the consolidation. ---------
Notes:
[1] Pet., G&I VIII WF Plaza LLC v Cnty. of Hennepin, No. 27-CV-20-907 (Minn. T.C. filed Jan. 14, 2020).
[2] Sched. Order (filed Feb. 1, 2021).
[3] The order provides: "All discovery must be served so that compliance can occur in...
To continue reading
Request your trial