Cleveland-Cliffs Minn. Land Dev., LLC v. Minn. Dep't of Natural Res.
| Decision Date | 15 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | A18-1030 |
| Parties | Cleveland-Cliffs Minnesota Land Development, LLC, Relator, v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Respondent, Mesabi Metallics Company, LLC, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).
Appeal dismissed
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
William P. Hefner, Jeremy Greenhouse, The Environmental Law Group, Ltd., Mendota Heights, MN (for relator)
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Joshua Skaar, Max Kieley, Assistant Attorneys General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Minnesota Department of Natural Resources)
Rob A. Stefonowicz, Peder A. Larson, Bryan J. Huntington, Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Mesabi Metallics Company, LLC)
Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Rodenberg, Judge; and Bratvold, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges a letter from respondent Minnesota Department of Natural Resources denying relator's request to transfer or cancel certain permits held by respondent Mesabi Metallics Company, LLC. Because the action does not present a justiciable controversy, we dismiss the appeal.
This appeal arises out of a dispute between relator Cleveland-Cliffs Minnesota Land Development, LLC (CCMLD) and respondent Mesabi Metallics Company, LLC (Mesabi), successor-in-interest to Essar Steel Minnesota, LLC (Essar) and Minnesota Steel Industries, LLC (MSI), regarding four water-appropriation permits issued by respondent Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (the DNR).
In December 2006, MSI applied to the DNR for water-appropriation permits for the Minnesota Steel project at the former Butler Taconite site near Nashwauk. The DNR, in cooperation with the United States Army Corps of Engineers, prepared a joint state and federal environmental impact statement (EIS) for MSI's taconite mine and steel making project. The EIS was completed in August 2007. On August 22, 2007, the DNR issued four water-appropriation permits to MSI—identified as 2008-0065, 2008-0066, 2008-0067, and 2006-0433—authorizing dewatering of several mine pits and make-up water supply for mine processing.
In autumn 2008, MSI changed its name to Essar and asked the DNR to transfer the permits to Essar. Essar proposed modifying the project by increasing production and themining rate, while reducing the 20-year life of the mine to 15 years. The DNR completed a supplemental EIS in December 2011 to evaluate the impacts associated with the increase in capacity, construction, and operation of the modified mine plan, and issued permits identifying Essar as the permittee.
As part of its iron-ore mining and processing activities, Essar entered into a series of mineral leases in 2006 with Glacier Park Iron Ore Properties, LLC (Glacier Park), and Superior Mineral Resources, LLC (Superior).1 See In re Essar Steel Minnesota LLC, 590 B.R. 109, 112-13 (Bankr. D. Del. 2018). These mineral leases are distinct from the water-appropriation permits granted by the DNR. The mineral leases remained in effect through 2016, when Glacier Park became the owner of the property and lessor under the leases. The mineral leases provided for the payment of royalties from Essar to Glacier Park, based on the amount of iron ore extracted from the property. The leases also contained a minimum production requirement which, if not satisfied, gave Glacier Park the right to terminate the mineral leases.
On July 8, 2016, Essar filed voluntary petitions for relief under chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.During the course of these proceedings, Essar changed its name to Mesabi through a Plan of Reorganization, and Mesabi agreed to undertake Essar's obligations. The Bankruptcy Court approved the change. In January 2017, Mesabi and Glacier Park entered into a forbearance agreement for each of the leases. The following month, Mesabi filed its initial chapter 11 plan of reorganization and filed a notice of its intention to assume the leases with Glacier Park. Glacier Park objected to the proposed plan for Mesabi to assume the leases.
On August 28, 2017, Mesabi entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement with Chippewa Capital Partners, LLC, Superior, and Glacier Park, to resolve the dispute regarding assumption of the leases. The settlement agreement provided that Mesabi's assumption of the leases was contingent on Mesabi's chapter 11 reorganization plan going into effect no later than October 31, 2017. The October 31, 2017 deadline passed before the reorganization plan became effective and, under the terms of the settlement agreement, the mineral leases automatically reverted to Glacier Park and Superior on November 1, 2017, without need for further bankruptcy proceedings or litigation. On December 9, 2017, Glacier Park executed new leases with CCMLD, conveying the mineral rights that had previously been subject to the Mesabi leases.
On March 1, 2018, CCMLD sent a letter to the DNR demanding that the DNR transfer or cancel the water-appropriation permits held by Mesabi. The request was "premised on CCMLD's acquisition on December 9, 2017, of certain surface and mineral interests that are affected by the four permits." On March 13, the DNR met with representatives from Mesabi to discuss the permits and CCMLD's demand letter. On April9, the DNR administratively amended the permits by changing the name on the permits from Essar to Mesabi. The DNR then issued amended water-appropriation permits recognizing Mesabi as the permittee for each of the four permits. On May 8, the DNR sent a letter to CCMLD denying its demand to transfer or terminate the permits and explaining that:
On June 4, CCMLD sent an email to the DNR requesting reconsideration of its request. Three days later, CCMLD filed a petition for writ of certiorari, challenging the May 8, 2018 letter from the DNR.
I. Presence of a Justiciable Controversy
Respondents challenge the court's jurisdiction to consider this certiorari appeal on the grounds that (1) CCMLD lacks standing to pursue an appeal, (2) CCMLD's claims aremoot, and (3) this court is not the proper venue in which to resolve factual disputes. "[T]he existence of a justiciable controversy is essential to our exercise of jurisdiction." Minnesota Sands, LLC v. Cty. of Winona, 917 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Minn. App. 2018) (quotation omitted). Justiciability is separate and distinct from the merits of the case. McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing, 808 N.W.2d 331, 341 (Minn. 2011). Justiciability is a question of law that an appellate court reviews de novo. Id. at 337.
"Standing is a legal requirement that a party have a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court." Id. at 338 (quotation omitted). Standing is conferred upon a party who has suffered an injury-in-fact or maintains a statutory right to sue. Nash v. Wollan, 656 N.W.2d 585, 588 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Apr. 29, 2003). "The purpose of the standing requirement is to ensure that issues before the courts will be vigorously and adequately presented." State ex rel. Hatch v. Allina Health Sys., 679 N.W.2d 400, 404 (Minn. App. 2004) (quotations omitted). "The lack of standing bars judicial consideration of a claim." Scheffler v. City of Anoka, 890 N.W.2d 437, 451 (Minn. App. 2017), review denied (Apr. 26, 2017). Because standing is a jurisdictional issue, an appellate court evaluates decisions on standing de novo. In re Gillette Children's Specialty Healthcare, 883 N.W.2d 778, 784 (Minn. 2016); see also League of Women Voters Minn. v. Ritchie, 819 N.W.2d 636, 645 n.7 (Minn. 2012) ().
CCMLD contends that it has standing to challenge the DNR's denial of the request to transfer or cancel the permits because CCMLD has been injuriously and adversely affected by the DNR's letter. CCMLD argues that by refusing to transfer or cancel thepermits, the DNR is impermissibly allowing Mesabi to encumber CCMLD's property interests and trespass on CCMLD's properties.
Respondents argue that CCMLD lacks injury-in-fact standing to demand transfer or cancellation of the permits. An injury-in-fact involves harm that is "concrete and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Hanson v. Woolston, 701 N.W.2d 257, 262 (Minn. App. 2005) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct. 18, 2005). To demonstrate an injury-in-fact the relator "must show a concrete and particularized invasion of a legally protected interest." Marine Credit Union v. Detlefson-Delano, 830 N.W.2d 859, 864 n.3 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted). The relator must also "point to an injury that is fairly traceable to the . . . challenged action and that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision." Scheffler, 890 N.W.2d at 451.
For the reasons set forth below, we determine that CCMLD lacks standing...
To continue reading
Request your trial