Doe v. Columbia Heights Sch. Dist., A13–0768.
| Decision Date | 21 January 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. A13–0768.,A13–0768. |
| Citation | 842 N.W.2d 38 |
| Parties | Jane DOE 175, a minor, by her mother and natural guardian, Mother DOE 175, Respondent, v. COLUMBIA HEIGHTS SCHOOL DISTRICT, ISD No. 13, Appellant, Christopher Lloyd Warnke, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court
1. An appellant may not obtain answers to questions certified by a district court if the district court did not consider the certified questions in its order denying a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment, as required by rule 103.03(i) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.
2. An appellant may not obtain answers to questions certified by a district court in the “interest of justice” if there is no other issue properly before the court, as required by rule 103.04 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.
3. In considering a petition for discretionary review of a non-appealable order that does not concern class certification, pursuant to rule 105.01 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, this court considers the factors identified in Gordon v. Microsoft Corp., 645 N.W.2d 393 (Minn.2002), and the factors identified in Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord's, Inc., No. A05–1640 (Minn. Nov. 22, 2005) (order).
4. A respondent may not obtain interlocutory appellate review of a district court's partial grant of summary judgment by way of a notice of related appeal pursuant to rule 106 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure if the appellant's underlying appeal is being dismissed and if respondent seeks review of an otherwise non-appealable order.
Jeffrey R. Anderson, Sarah G. Odegaard, Jeff Anderson & Associates, P.A., St. Paul, MN, for respondent Jane Doe 175.
Margaret A. Skelton, Christian R. Shafer, Scott E. Schraut, Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for appellant Columbia Heights School District.
Christopher Lloyd Warnke, Anoka, MN, pro se respondent.
Susan L. Naughton, League of Minnesota Cities, St. Paul, MN, for amici curiae League of Minnesota Cities and Association of Minnesota Counties.
Thomas S. Deans, Michelle D. Kenney, Knutson, Flynn & Deans, P.A., Mendota Heights, MN, for amicus curiae Minnesota School Boards Association.
Considered and decided by JOHNSON, Presiding Judge; RODENBERG, Judge; and CHUTICH, Judge.
While employed by the Columbia Heights School District, Christopher Lloyd Warnke engaged in sexual misconduct with a minor student. The student sued Warnke and the school district. The district court granted the school district's motion for summary judgment on two theories of relief but denied the motion with respect to the student's theory that the school district should be vicariously liable for Warnke's tortious conduct. The student's surviving claims against Warnke and the school district are pending in the district court.
After ruling on the school district's motion for summary judgment, the district court certified two questions to this court pursuant to rule 103.03(i) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. The school district served and filed a notice of appeal to obtain answers to the certified questions. The student filed a notice of related appeal to obtain interlocutory appellate review of the district court's partial grant of the school district's motion for summary judgment with respect to two claims.
We conclude that the certified questions are not properly before this court because the school district and the district court did not comply with rule 103.03(i). We also conclude that the student's related appeal is not properly before this court because the school district's appeal is being dismissed and because the student seeks review of an otherwise non-appealable order. Therefore, we dismiss both the appeal and the related appeal.
In 2009, Warnke worked for the school district as a football coach and weight-room supervisor. In the fall of that year, Warnke engaged in sexual misconduct with a minor student who is identified in this case as Jane Doe 175. The misconduct included the exchange of sexually explicit text messages and one incident of hand-to-genital contact when Doe visited Warnke in the weight room. The school district learned of the misconduct in November 2009 and contacted law enforcement on the same day. The school district immediately placed Warnke on administrative leave and terminated his employment shortly thereafter. In February 2011, Warnke pleaded guilty to one count of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct and two counts of solicitation of a child to engage in sexual conduct.
In October 2011, Doe commenced this civil action. She alleged a claim of sexual battery against Warnke and two negligence claims against the school district. She also alleged that the school district is vicariously liable for Warnke's tortious conduct.
In November 2012, the school district moved for summary judgment on the two negligence claims as well as Doe's allegation of vicarious liability. The school district argued that it should not be held liable for Warnke's misconduct because his actions were not foreseeable. In February 2013, the district court granted the school district's motion with respect to the two negligence claims but denied the motion with respect to the allegation of vicarious liability. The district court reasoned that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Warnke's misconduct was foreseeable for purposes of vicarious liability.
On March 15, 2013, the school district filed a petition in this court seeking discretionary review of the district court's denial of its motion for summary judgment with respect to the allegation of vicarious liability. On the same day, the school district also filed a motion in the district court for certification of two questions to this court pursuant to rule 103.03(i) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. In its memorandum of law in support of the motion for certification, the school district argued that it should not be vicariously liable for Warnke's tortious conduct because of the statutory immunity provided by section 466.02 of the Minnesota Statutes. The school district had not previously presented this statutory-immunity argument to the district court in its motion for summary judgment. In fact, the school district's argument for certification was inconsistent with its previous argument for summary judgment. In its memorandum of law in support of its motion for summary judgment, the school district did not challenge the applicability or viability of Doe's vicarious-liability theory but argued that the theory should fail because Warnke's misconduct was not foreseeable. In its memorandum of law in support of its motion for certification, however, the school district argued that the doctrine of vicarious liability is inapplicable because of statutory immunity. The school district did not present alternative arguments in either its summary-judgment motion or its certification motion.
On March 24, 2013, the district court granted the school district's motion for certification in an order that had been prepared by the school district and submitted to the district court as a proposed order. The district court certified the following two questions:
1. Whether the application of common law doctrines [sic] of vicarious liability is contrary to the statutory restrictions on school districts' liability for the torts of their employees?
2. Whether it is unfair to include the loss resulting from a non-licensed public employee's criminal misconduct among a school district's operational costs solely because a plaintiff's expert summarily concludes that such misconduct is a well-known hazard?
On May 1, 2013, the school district filed a notice of appeal to obtain answers to the two questions certified by the district court. On May 9, 2013, Doe filed a notice of related appeal to obtain interlocutory appellate review of the district court's partial grant of summary judgment to the school district with respect to her negligence claims.
Thereafter, this court ruled on the school district's petition for discretionary review. On May 17, 2013, we issued an order that conditionally denied the petition on the ground that discretionary review was unnecessary because the school district had filed a notice of appeal. But the order reserved the court's authority to entertain the petition if the court were to not answer the certified questions.
The school district and Doe proceeded to brief the merits of the certified questions and the issue raised by Doe's related appeal. Warnke did not file a brief. In her responsive brief, Doe argued, in part, that the school district did not preserve its appellate argument in its motion for summary judgment and that the district court did not address the merits of the certified questions in its summary-judgment order. Both parties presented oral arguments concerning procedural and substantive issues. For the reasons stated below, we do not reach the merits of the parties' claims and defenses because we dismiss both appeals.
1. May the school district obtain answers to questions certified by the district court pursuant to rule 103.03(i) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure if the district court did not consider and resolve the issues raised by the certified questions in its order denying the school district's motion for summary judgment?
2. In light of our dismissal of the school district's certified-question appeal, may Doe obtain interlocutory appellate review of the district court's partial grant of summary judgment to the school district?
Doe argues in part that the certified questions raised by the school district's appeal are not properly before this court because they contain issues that are being raised for the first time on appeal. We address this argument before considering the merits of the school district's appeal to ensure that the certified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gossman v. Gossman, A13–1095.
...to consider it on appeal, if it had any merit. See Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn.1988); Doe ex rel. Doe v. Columbia Heights Sch. Dist., 842 N.W.2d 38, 42–43 (Minn.App.2014). In any event, his argument plainly is inconsistent with the established caselaw. * Retired judge of the ......
-
Cruz-Guzman v. State, A22-0118
...answer a certified question which is not first decided and explained by the trial court." Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights Sch. Dist., ISD No. 13 , 842 N.W.2d 38, 44 (Minn. App. 2014) (quotation omitted). Accordingly, we will not reformulate the certified question in the manner r......
-
Berger v. Wynes
...the issue or argument is forfeited and may not be asserted in an appellate court." Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights Sch. Dist., ISD No. 13, 842 N.W.2d 38, 43 (Minn. App.2014). Respondent forfeited the argument that Meulemans's conduct was ministerial by not raising it to the dist......
-
Benson v. Peterson
...asking for a ruling in her favor. See Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988); Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights Sch. Dist., 842 N.W.2d 38, 43 n.1 (Minn. App. 2014). ...