Halva v. Minn. State Colls.
| Decision Date | 16 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | A19-0481 |
| Citation | 937 N.W.2d 471 |
| Parties | Tyler HALVA, Appellant, v. MINNESOTA STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Jared M. Goerlitz, Goerlitz Law, PLLC, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Kathryn M. Woodruff, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Klaphake, Judge.*
Appellant argues that the district court erred by dismissing his claim for damages under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA), Minn. Stat. §§ 13.01 -.90 (2018), after concluding that appellant already pursued an administrative action under section 13.085. Appellant also argues that the district court erred by granting respondent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on appellant’s claims under the MORA after concluding that the MORA does not provide a private cause of action. We affirm.
In March 2015, respondent Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) posted a request for proposal (RFP) for a professional/technical services contract—software for an online registration system for continuing education and customized training. The RFP included general selection criteria upon which proposals would be evaluated, and explained that proposals failing to address the RFP requirements may be disregarded.
Four vendors submitted proposals, including appellant Tyler Halva. During a WebEx video meeting, the selection committee evaluated Halva’s proposal and electronically highlighted Halva’s proposal’s cover letter using Adobe Acrobat Reader’s highlight function. When the document was closed on the computer, the committee’s highlights were not saved. The committee disqualified Halva’s proposal because he failed to provide required information.
In December 2015, Halva requested, pursuant to the MGDPA, that MnSCU provide him with the names of the other vendors that submitted proposals. On February 19, 2016, MnSCU responded to Halva’s request and stated that the contract had been awarded to a vendor other than Halva. Halva then sent four additional requests for information to MnSCU. MnSCU responded in August 2016, but, because Halva believed that MnSCU’s response was untimely and incomplete, he filed a data-practices complaint with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on September 20, 2016. After Halva filed the complaint, he received additional information from MnSCU, but ultimately, MnSCU did not send Halva information regarding his own RFP submission, including the highlighted copy of Halva’s cover letter, because it did not understand his request to include data on himself.
In January 2017, an administrative-law judge (ALJ) determined that MnSCU failed to comply with the MGDPA and ordered MnSCU to provide Halva a copy of his original RFP submission and a copy of the highlights made to Halva’s cover letter if it had retained a copy. MnSCU provided Halva documents in response to the ALJ’s order. But Halva objected, claiming that the data was insufficient because he submitted his proposal on a CD and MnSCU provided him a paper copy, and MnSCU determined that it had not retained the highlighted copy of Halva’s cover letter. In response to Halva’s objections, the ALJ determined that MnSCU was not obligated to provide data that was not recorded in physical form, or required to acquire particular software to create a permanent record of an electronic conversation or meeting.
In June 2018, Halva filed a complaint in district court. In count one, Halva sought a declaratory judgment that MnSCU’s contract with the winning vendor is "void for failure to comply with the competitive bidding requirements." In count two, Halva sought to permanently enjoin MnSCU from performing under the contract. In count three, Halva sought to compel MnSCU’s compliance with the MORA and the MGDPA. And in count four, Halva sought damages for MnSCU’s violation of the MGDPA.
MnSCU moved to dismiss under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02. MnSCU argued that count one failed because Halva failed to join a necessary party, the winning vendor. It argued that count two failed because Halva sought a permanent injunction, which is a remedy, not a cause of action. MnSCU argued that count three should be dismissed because Halva’s action to compel compliance under the MGDPA was moot, and the documents that Halva sought were not records within the meaning of the MORA. Lastly, MnSCU argued that count four should be dismissed because Halva’s claim for damages contained only legal conclusions and he made no allegations as to how MnSCU caused him injury.
The district court granted MnSCU’s motion to dismiss counts one and two.1 The district court also granted MnSCU’s motion to dismiss counts three and four, but only to the extent that Halva purported to state a claim under the MGDPA. The district court concluded that because Halva commenced his MGDPA action in the OAH, he could not relitigate the MGDPA matters in district court. But to the extent that counts three and four purported to state a claim under the MORA, the district court denied MnSCU’s motion because the ALJ did not make a decision under the MORA, deeming it outside the jurisdiction of the OAH.2
MnSCU then moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the MORA does not create a private cause of action. On February 1, 2019, the district court granted MnSCU’s motion, concluding: Judgment was entered, and this appeal followed.
The district court granted MnSCU’s motion to dismiss Halva’s MGDPA claim under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This court Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A. , 851 N.W.2d 598, 606 (Minn. 2014) (citation omitted).
Halva argues that the district court erred by dismissing his claim for damages under the MGDPA after concluding that he could not commence an action in district court after prevailing in the OAH. Halva claims that, under the MGDPA, an action to compel compliance may be commenced in the OAH, and then damages may be sought in district court. Whether the district court properly applied the MGDPA presents an issue of statutory interpretation, which this court reviews de novo. See Cocchiarella v. Driggs , 884 N.W.2d 621, 624 (Minn. 2016).
Under Minn. Stat. § 13.08, subd. 4, "[a]ctions to compel compliance [with the MGDPA] may be brought either under [ section 13.08, subdivision 4 ] or section 13.085." Section 13.085 governs administrative remedies. Thus, an action to compel compliance with the MGDPA may either be brought in district court or filed in the OAH. However, section 13.085 further provides that an OAH decision regarding compliance "is not controlling in any subsequent action brought in district court alleging the same violation and seeking damages." Minn. Stat. § 13.085, subd. 5(e). Therefore, Halva is correct; he could file a complaint in the OAH seeking to compel MnSCU’s compliance with the MGDPA and then file a complaint in district court seeking damages based on the same alleged violation.
MnSCU argues that even if Halva is correct, Halva failed to sufficiently plead damages in district court. We agree. At the pleading stage, the plaintiff cannot allege mere "labels and conclusions." Bahr v. Capella Univ. , 788 N.W.2d 76, 80 (Minn. 2010). He also is not entitled to recovery of damages that are "remote and speculative." Jackson v. Reiling , 311 Minn. 562, 249 N.W.2d 896, 897 (1977). In his complaint, Halva claimed only that he "has been injured by [MnSCU]’s failure to provide an opportunity to participate in a competitive bidding process," and alleged that he "has been aggrieved by these violations of the MGDPA and has suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial, including costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney’s fees." These alleged damages are conjectural.
Halva argues that this court cannot consider an alternative basis to affirm the district court’s decision because MnSCU did not file a notice of related appeal (NORA). But a NORA is required when a respondent seeks review of a district court ruling that was adverse to respondent. Day Masonry v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 347 , 781 N.W.2d 321, 332 (Minn. 2010). Here, although MnSCU argued to the district court that Halva failed to adequately allege damages, the district court did not decide that issue. Thus, there is no ruling adverse to MnSCU on that issue, and a NORA was not required. Further, in reviewing an order dismissing a claim under rule 12.02, the only issue before this court is whether the pleadings are adequate, and this court will affirm a dismissal "if it is clear that no relief can be granted under any set of facts that can be proved consistent with the allegations." Nelson v. Productive Alts., Inc. , 715 N.W.2d 452, 454 (Minn. 2006). Halva failed to sufficiently plead damages in his complaint. Therefore, no relief can be granted, and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Halva v. Minn. State Colls. & Univs., A19-0481
...appealed.The court of appeals affirmed, based in part on different reasoning than the district court. Halva v. Minn. State Colls. & Univs. , 937 N.W.2d 471, 476 (Minn. App. 2019). First, the court of appeals held that the district court erred by concluding that Halva could not pursue both a......