Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minn., A16-0360
Decision Date | 24 May 2017 |
Docket Number | A16-0360 |
Citation | 895 N.W.2d 623 |
Parties | Lawrence LEIENDECKER, et al., Respondents, v. ASIAN WOMEN UNITED OF MINNESOTA, et al., Appellants, Greenstein, Mabley & Wall, LLC, et al., Appellants. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Eric J. Magnuson, Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Mahesha P. Subbaraman, Subbaraman PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Robert A. Hill, Robert Hill Law, Ltd., Maplewood, Minnesota; and Thomas B. Gunther, Gunther Law Offices, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondents.
Kay Nord Hunt, Phillip A. Cole, Bryan R. Feldhaus, Lommen Abdo, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellants Asian Women United of Minnesota, et al.
Thomas P. Kane, Armeen F. Mistry, Cozen O'Connor, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellants Greenstein, Mabley & Wall, LLC, et al.
Sinuon and Lawrence Leiendecker sued the nonprofit organization Asian Women United of Minnesota (AWUM), alleging that two of AWUM's previous lawsuits against them constituted malicious prosecution. AWUM sought immunity under Minnesota's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law, which permits parties to move for dismissal of a lawsuit on the ground that a claim against them relates to an act involving public participation. Minn. Stat. §§ 554.01 -.06 (2016). After we clarified the law's procedure, the district court ruled that the section of the law that governs motions "to dispose of a judicial claim," Minn. Stat. § 554.02, subdivision 1, violated the Leiendeckers' right to a jury trial by requiring the trial judge to find facts. Id ., subd. 2(3) ( ). AWUM appealed to the court of appeals, then petitioned this court for accelerated review, which we granted. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Our previous case involving these parties chronicled the history of this litigation.
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minn. , 848 N.W.2d 224, 226-28 (Minn. 2014) (footnotes omitted).
A party moving to dismiss a claim based on the anti-SLAPP law must "make a threshold showing that the underlying ‘claim materially relates to an act of the moving party that involves public participation.’ " Stengrim , 784 N.W.2d at 841 (quoting Minn. Stat. § 554.02, subd. 1 ). After the moving party makes this threshold showing, the burden shifts to the responding party. Clauses 2 and 3 of Minnesota Statutes § 554.02, subdivision 2, explain the responding party's burden:
In the previous case involving these parties, we announced that the plain language of clause 3 requires the responding party to provide evidence—not mere allegations—to show by clear and convincing evidence that the moving party's acts are not immune. Leiendecker , 848 N.W.2d at 232-33. As we said then, under subdivision 2, "the responding party bears the burden to persuade the trier of fact—here, the district court—of the truth of a proposition." 848 N.W.2d at 231.
On remand, the court of appeals determined that AWUM had made a threshold showing that the lawsuit filed by the Leiendeckers materially related to an act by AWUM involving public participation. Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minn. , Nos. A12-1978, A12-2015, 2014 WL 7011061, at *3-4 (Minn. App. Dec. 15, 2014), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 25, 2015). The court of appeals then remanded the case to the district court with instructions to apply the standard we articulated in Leiendecker to the Leiendeckers' response. 2014 WL 7011061, at *4.
At the district court, AWUM renewed its motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP law. In response, the Leiendeckers moved for an order declaring the anti-SLAPP law unconstitutional.1 The district court found that the Leiendeckers fell short of proving by clear and convincing evidence that AWUM's acts were not immunized from liability. But the court concluded that Minn. Stat. § 554.02 violated the Leiendeckers' constitutional right to a jury trial. Minn. Const. art. I, § 4. As a result, the district court denied AWUM's motion to dismiss.
AWUM appealed and sought accelerated review. We granted AWUM's petition for accelerated review.2 AWUM argues that (1) the Leiendeckers waived their claim that the anti-SLAPP law is unconstitutional and (2) the law is constitutional in any event. Because we conclude that the Leiendeckers did not waive their constitutional claim and Minn. Stat. § 554.02 is unconstitutional as applied to the Leiendeckers' claim at law alleging a tort, we affirm.
Before proceeding to the merits of the constitutional argument, we must resolve two preliminary issues: whether the Leiendeckers waived their argument that the law is unconstitutional and whether the district court violated the court of appeals' remand instructions.
AWUM contends that the Leiendeckers waived their right to assert that the anti-SLAPP law is unconstitutional by failing to make that argument at any of three junctures: (1) in their petition for review of the court of appeals' 2013 decision, (2) in their petition for rehearing following our 2014 decision, and (3) in their second petition for review following the court of appeals' 2014 decision on remand. We conclude that the Leiendeckers' constitutional challenge was not ripe until the case was remanded to the district court and, therefore, could not have been waived at an earlier...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ries v. State, A16-0220
...our court."1 Ante at 628 n.4. I disagree."[F]orfeiture refers to the failure to timely assert a right." Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minn. , 895 N.W.2d 623, 631 n.3 (Minn. 2017) (citation omitted). A party can forfeit appellate review of an issue at different stages of the proceedin......
-
State v. Hassan
...we have not hesitated to invalidate laws that contravene the Minnesota Constitution. See, e.g. , Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minn. , 895 N.W.2d 623, 628 (Minn. 2017) (Minn. Stat. § 554.02 (2016) ); State v. Garcia , 683 N.W.2d 294, 296 (Minn. 2004) (Minn. Stat. § 260B.130, subd. 5 ......
-
Gifford v. The Taunton Press, Inc.
... ... association under the Constitution of the United ... States or the Constitution of the state ... 86, 160 A.3d 1190 ... (2017); Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of ... Minnesota, 5 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. 2017); Davis v ... Cox, 183 Wash.2d ... ...
-
Back v. State, A15-1637.
...contrast, in Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota, we saw good reason, not present here, to sever more broadly. 895 N.W.2d 623, 637-38 (Minn. 2017). In Leiendecker, we held unconstitutional two clauses of Minn. Stat. § 554.02 (2016), which set forth the burden of proof and the jud......