IRC Champlin Marketplace, L.L.C. v. County of Hennepin
| Decision Date | 08 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | 27-CV-19-6858 |
| Parties | IRC Champlin Marketplace, L.L.C., Petitioner, v. County of Hennepin, Respondent. |
| Court | Tax Court of Minnesota |
This matter came before the Honorable Wendy S. Tien, Chief Judge of the Minnesota Tax Court, for hearing on petitioner's motion to amend the scheduling order.
Thomas R. Wilhelmy, Gauri S. Samant, and Christopher A. Stafford Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., represent petitioner IRC Champlin Marketplace, L.L.C..
Sara L. Bruggeman, Assistant County Attorney, represents respondent Hennepin County.
Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings, the Court now makes the following:
1. Petitioner's motion to amend the scheduling order is granted.
2. Champlin must serve (but not file) written appraisals, and the reports of any other retained experts or witnesses whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve giving expert testimony, in final form no later than 5:00 pm June 15, 2021. Champlin may not provide the expert report or workfile it received from the County on April 12, 2021, to its retained expert until after June 15, 2021.
3. At its election, the County may serve (but not file) an amendment to its previously served written appraisals, and the reports of any other retained experts or witnesses whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve giving expert testimony, in final form no later than 5:00 pm June 15, 2021.
4. An Amended Scheduling Order will be separately filed concerning subsequent deadlines.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
On April 25, 2019, IRC Champlin Marketplace, L.L.C. ("Champlin"), filed a petition disputing the market value of its subject property as of January 2 2018.[1] On May 11, 2020, this court filed a Scheduling Order governing this matter.[2] Among other things, the Scheduling Order required each party to "notify all other parties (but not the court) in writing of the identity of the appraiser/expert [] retained" and "the date on which the appraiser/expert was retained" within ten days of retaining the appraiser or expert and, in any event, no later than 45 days before the close of discovery.[3] The Scheduling Order specifies that failure to comply with the notice requirement may result in exclusion of the appraisal or expert report and the appraiser's or expert's testimony at trial.[4] It also specified an appraisal exchange date of April 12, 2021.[5]
On April 12, 2021, Champlin informed the County, late in the day, [6] that it had not received its appraisal from its expert and was unable to exchange its appraisal and workfile "due to unforeseen urgent health and medical circumstances affecting the primary draftsman of the appraisal report." [7] This disclosure occurred after several apparent attempts by Champlin's counsel to obtain information about the status of the appraisal.[8] Specifically, Champlin's counsel avers that around 9 am on April 12, a supervisor at Newmark Knight Frank Valuation & Advisory Services ("Newmark"), the appraisal firm Champlin retained to perform its appraisal of the subject property, notified counsel that it was having problems reaching the primary draftsman of the appraisal despite having communicated with that individual several hours earlier in the morning.[9]At that time, Newmark also indicated the existence of unspecified health problems that may have played a part in its problems reaching the appraiser.[10] Champlin's counsel avers it made several attempts to reach Newmark regarding the status of the appraisal throughout the day, but did not receive a response until after 4 pm.[11] During that time, Champlin corresponded with counsel for the County regarding other pretrial filings, including emails discussing the method of exchanging appraisals.[12] The County timely provided its appraisal to Champlin on April 12.[13]
Champlin's counsel avers that at 6 pm on April 12, Newmark continued to represent it intended to provide a final appraisal report and workfile within the next hour or so.[14] At about 8 pm, however, the Newmark supervisor informed Champlin's counsel that Newmark was unable to provide the appraisal and a letter explaining the reasons was forthcoming.[15] Champlin's counsel notified the County around 8:30 pm that its expert had experienced some unexpected medical issues and counsel had not received the appraisal and workfile: [16]
Champlin did not communicate further with the County concerning the status of its appraisal exchange until May 17, 2021, [17] when it filed and served its motion to amend the scheduling order.[18] The motion is supported by a letter from Newmark, and signed by its Human Resources Manager, detailing the medical issues originally described more obliquely on April 12, 2021.[19] Although the County initially did not specifically object to the amendment of the scheduling order in its response, [20] at a hearing held on June 7, 2021, the County opposed amendment.
Minnesota Statutes, section 271.06, subdivision 7 (2020), provides that, in general, the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure (the "Rules") govern the procedures in the tax court, where practicable. Rule 16.02 authorizes the court to enter a scheduling order setting deadlines for, among other things, the completion of discovery and "any other matters appropriate in the circumstances of the case." Minn. R. Civ. P. 16.02(c) & (g). Such an order "controls the subsequent course of the action, unless modified ... to prevent manifest injustice." Cotroneo v. Pilney, 343 N.W.2d 645, 648 (Minn. 1984) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Minn. R. Civ. P. 16). See also Rule 16.05 .[21]
A scheduling order "shall not be modified except by leave of court upon a showing of good cause." Minn. R. Civ. P. 16.02; Maudsley v. Pederson, 676 N.W.2d 8, 12 (Minn.App. 2004) (). Factors relevant to determining whether a pretrial order should be modified are:
Cotroneo, 343 N.W.2d at 649. "[A] balancing approach provides the clearest mode of analysis." Id.
Champlin requests amendment of the Scheduling Order with respect to the appraisal exchange date, previously April 12, 2021. Counsel for Champlin stated an extension to June 15, 2021 was sufficient. The motion is granted.
Consistent with Rule 16.02, the Scheduling Order provides that extensions or continuances of dates specified in the order "will not be granted except by written motion, supported by an affidavit showing good cause," and that good cause "shall not include belated settlement negotiations, failure to retain an appraiser/expert, or any other failure to diligently prepare for trial." [22]
A court has the authority to enforce or modify its own scheduling orders, including the discretion to determine whether to permit the amendment of expired deadlines. See Maudsley, 676 N.W.2d at 12 (). Champlin delayed over a month beyond the passage of the appraisal exchange deadline to request amendment of the Scheduling Order to extend that deadline. Nonetheless, this delay appears not to have been for "failure to retain an appraiser/expert[] or any other failure to diligently prepare for trial." [23] Rather, the delay resulted from good-faith uncertainty surrounding Champlin's (and Newmark's) lawful disclosure of the events on April 12, 2021.
Based on the record, Champlin reasonably believed, until about 8 pm on April 12, that Newmark intended to deliver a final expert report and workfile that day.[24] Although the County already has provided its appraisal to Champlin, Champlin's counsel avers that it has not provided the County's appraisal to Newmark or to Champlin.[25] The record does not suggest that Champlin knew in advance of, procured, or had any control over the circumstances leading to Newmark's delay, nor does the record demonstrate any other willfulness or bad faith by Champlin. See Cotroneo, 343 N.W.2d at 649 ().
The primary consideration is the relative prejudice the parties would experience from amendment of the scheduling order. Id. (). Denial of the motion would require Champlin to provide an expert report to the County on a significantly untimely basis and likely would subject Champlin to a subsequent motion in limine. Accordingly, the prejudice to Champlin would be substantial.
Although the court shares the County's concerns that Champlin did not communicate about the status of its expert report for over a month, [26] granting the motion will not significantly prejudice the County under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial