Dunham v. Opperman, No. A06-750 (Minn. App. 4/24/2007)
| Decision Date | 24 April 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. A06-750.,A06-750. |
| Parties | Ali Dunham, et al., Appellants, v. Darin Opperman, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the District Court, Hennepin County, File No. 27-CV-04-006654.
Jill Clark, Jill Clark, P.A., (for appellants).
Andrew T. Shern, Chris Angell, Murnane Brandt, and Linda L. Holstein, Anh Le Kremer, Holstein Law Firm, (for respondent).
Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Hudson, Judge; and Ross, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellants challenge four separate orders issued by the district court, arguing that the district court (1) erred when it dismissed their claim for tortious interference with contract, (2) abused its discretion when it denied their motion to compel, (3) abused its discretion when it dismissed their case with prejudice as a sanction for discovery violations and inappropriate conduct, and (4) erred when it denied their motion to disqualify. Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellants' motion to compel and did not err when it dismissed appellants' claim for tortious interference with contract and denied their motion to disqualify, we affirm in part. But because we conclude that the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed appellants' claim with prejudice, we reverse in part and remand.
Appellants Debra Ali Dunham (Ali) and Audian Dunham (Audie) joined the Wayzata Country Club (WCC) as members in 1988. In 2001, Ali discovered that her husband, Audie, was having an affair with Karen Roer, another WCC member. After Ali told Roer's husband about the affair, Roer allegedly began a "mission to destroy" Ali. Ali complained that some of Roer's friends, including respondent Darin Opperman, also made it their mission to damage Ali's reputation and to get her kicked out of the WCC.
In August 2001, Roer obtained a restraining order against Ali, and on June 27, 2002, Ali was arrested at the WCC for violating the restraining order, after she allegedly called Roer a "slut" during a WCC event. As a result of her arrest, the Wayzata city prosecutor brought criminal charges against Ali; in September 2002, the WCC held its own hearing regarding Ali's alleged misconduct. After hearing testimony from both Audie and Ali, as well as the Roers, the WCC board determined that it would wait until the conclusion of the criminal trial before it made any recommendations regarding the situation. In October 2002, Ali was tried in criminal court for allegedly violating the harassment restraining order but was acquitted by a jury.
Despite her acquittal, Ali and the entire Dunham family were expelled from the WCC on November 22, 2002. In its expulsion letter to the Dunhams, the WCC board stated that it found "substantiation for the allegation" that Ali called Roer a "slut," which constituted "willful misconduct under the Bylaws." The letter further stated that "[b]ased on this conclusion, and given prior misconduct as noted in previous correspondence and discussions between officials of the Club and you, the Board has determined that your expulsion from the Club is warranted."
On May 4, 2004, the Dunhams brought suit against Opperman, alleging tortious interference with contract, defamation, conversion of personal property, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy.1 The Dunhams filed an amended complaint on June 28, 2004, omitting the conversion claim. The Dunhams now appeal from four separate orders of the district court.
The Dunhams' claim for defamation was based on the allegations contained in paragraph 5.3 of the amended complaint and three letters that Opperman wrote to the WCC board. Paragraph 5.3 states:
It is also alleged that Opperman was responsible for working together with one or more other individuals to defame Dunham and lower her reputation in the community. Dunhams have, in this early stage of this litigation, quoted as many statements as she can, but Dunhams need additional discovery in order to determine which statements were made (and their exact quotes) due to the plan acted upon by Opperman and other/s. Dunhams allege that this is somewhat analogous to a fraud claim where the information is in the hands of the defendant/s and therefore cannot necessarily be fully articulated in this Complaint. Dunhams are aware of defamation cases that cite a need to articulate the precise words of the defamatory statement in the Complaint, but allege that these facts (and particularly the allegation of a separate civil conspiracy claim in addition to defamation) warrant an opportunity to amend the Complaint to add specific statements. Dunhams will amend this Complaint as soon as possible in this litigation. Dunhams reserve the right to discovery, investigate and amend regarding allegations that Oppermand [sic] and/or other defendant/s, in concert, worked to portray Dunham in a false light (such as Dunham being a criminal defendant), in such a widespread manner that Dunham will literally be unable to repair her reputation or re-establish her reputation in the community. In addition, Dunham reserve [sic] the right to amend to include allegations concerning false statements made by Opperman and/or other defendant/s in tortiously interfering with Dunham's membership at the Club.
The first letter written by Opperman, dated June 12, 2001, was delivered to WCC President Thomas Howard in order to "report an incident of conduct unbecoming a member." In the letter, Opperman stated that while she was eating dinner at the WCC with Roer and another individual on June 7, 2001, Ali approached their table, gestured with her middle finger toward Roer, and stated to Opperman and the other member, "You better hope she's not sleeping with one of your husbands." Opperman stated that she was writing the letter "in the hope that the Board will address th[e] issue personally with Ms. Dunham and ask her to refrain from making inappropriate comments to club members and their children."
The second letter written by Opperman, dated June 10, 2002, was delivered to WCC President Karl Reuter and accused Ali of "intimidating and harassing" her by making a point of "stopping her golf game . . . on the course in order to glare and point." Opperman also accused Ali of monitoring the number of times that respondent was golfing at the WCC per month.2
Finally, on October 11, 2002, Opperman mailed a letter to Reuter and WCC Vice President Mark Eckerline, stating that Ali's accusations at her criminal trial that Opperman harassed and intimidated her children were "an out and out lie," and that she would "deal" with the accusations "in the appropriate forum at the appropriate time."
Opperman moved for dismissal of the allegations contained in paragraph 5.3 pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 12, alleging that they were vague and not pleaded with sufficient specificity. On February 2, 2005, the district court issued an order denying in part and granting in part Opperman's motion to dismiss, concluding that paragraph 5.3 "fail[ed] to satisfy the required level of specificity," as "[p]laintiff's attempted reservation of claims based on future investigation, discovery, or a change in the law [wa]s not sufficient to overcome the clear deficiencies in the allegations contained in Paragraph 5.3."
Opperman also moved for summary judgment with regard to the three letters she sent to the WCC, which allegedly defamed Ali. With regard to the first letter, Opperman argued that because the letter formed the basis for the district court's issuance of the restraining order in 2001, the statements were "substantially true," and thus not actionable. The district court agreed, concluding that the statements contained in the letter did not "constitute actionable defamation" because "the substance of the statements [was] found to be true." Thus, the district court dismissed the Dunhams' claim of defamation resulting from the June 12, 2001 letter.
With regard to the second letter, Opperman argued that summary judgment was appropriate because "the alleged defamatory statements were statements of opinion." But the district court disagreed, stating that "[t]he fact that one of the statements contained in the letter is prefaced with `I understand' is not dispositive on the question of subjective opinion." Instead, the district court concluded that "[w]hen taken as a whole, the letter, and the specific statements contained therein, could be read as assertions of objective facts that convey a defamatory meaning." Thus, the district court denied Opperman's motion for summary judgment with regard to the June 10, 2002 letter.
Finally, with regard to the third letter, Opperman argued that the "statements contained in th[e] letter [were] true as a matter of law" because the district court "determined [Ali] Dunham was not entitled to receive a restraining order against Karen Roer" based on those statements. Conversely, the Dunhams asked the district court "to interpret the jury verdict in [Ali] Dunham's criminal trial as a finding of `not guilty of calling Karen Roer a "slut" at the WCC' or `that the precise factual scenario at issue in Opperman's October 11, 2002 letter had already been tested in front of a jury.'" But the district court found that both of these assertions "test[ed] the bounds of reason" and concluded that the determination regarding whether the allegations made by Ali at her trial were a lie "present[ed] [a] genuine issue[] for determination by the fact-finder." Thus, the district court also denied Opperman's motion for summary judgment as to the October 11, 2002 letter.
Opperman also moved for dismissal of the Dunhams' tortious-interference claim, arguing that where the same allegations support both a defamation and...
To continue reading
Request your trial