Manselle v. Krogstad (In re Krogstad), A20-0076
| Decision Date | 30 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | A20-0076 |
| Citation | 941 N.W.2d 750 |
| Parties | IN RE Jeffrey KROGSTAD, M.D., et al., Petitioners, Darrel Manselle, Respondent, v. Jeffrey Krogstad, M.D., et al., Petitioners. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Nathaniel A. Dahl, Meshbesher & Spence, Ltd., Waite Park, Minnesota (for respondent)
Steven R. Schwegman, Kenneth H. Bayliss, Michelle M. Draewell, Quinlivan & Hughes, P.A., St. Cloud, Minnesota (for petitioners)
Considered and decided by Cleary, Chief Judge; Bratvold, Judge; and Bryan, Judge.
SPECIAL TERM OPINION
Darrel Manselle brought a tort action in Kandiyohi County, arising out of medical treatment provided at a clinic in Todd County (operated by Lakewood Health System) by Dr. Jeffrey Krogstad, a physician residing in Kandiyohi County. The two defendants demanded a change of venue to Todd County, and plaintiff Manselle made a timely motion to quash the demand. The district court denied the request for a change of venue. The defendants seek a writ of mandamus.
A party who asserts that the district court has erroneously applied venue statutes may seek review by way of a petition for a writ of mandamus. Ebenezer Soc'y v. Minn. State Bd. of Health , 301 Minn. 188, 223 N.W.2d 385, 388 (1974). Mandamus is appropriate if uncontroverted facts in the record establish that a party is entitled to a change of venue. Castle v. Village of Baudette , 267 Minn. 140, 125 N.W.2d 416, 419 (1963). A petitioner challenging the district court’s interpretation of venue statutes bears the burden of establishing that the petitioner’s interpretation of the applicable statutes is correct. Ebenezer Soc'y , 223 N.W.2d at 388.
The sole issue presented is whether the district court correctly interpreted the phrase "several defendants" in Minn. Stat. § 542.10 to mean more than two defendants.1 Because resolution of the issue turns on statutory interpretation, the first step is to determine whether the language of the statute "is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation." Rodriguez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 931 N.W.2d 632, 634 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted). If the language is ambiguous, "we look to other interpretative tools to assist our inquiry into legislative intent." Id. ; see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2018) ().
In the absence of a specific venue statute, civil actions "shall be tried in a county in which one or more of the defendants reside when the action is begun or in which the cause of action or some part thereof arose." Minn. Stat. § 542.09 (2018). There is a "preference for venue in the county of defendant’s residence," and a plaintiff seeking to retain venue where no defendant resides "must make a strong showing" that some part of the cause of action arose where the action was brought. Associated Producers, Inc. v. Warren Grain & Seed Co. , 308 Minn. 150, 241 N.W.2d 93, 95 (1976). The district court’s denial of the defendants’ request to change venue in this case is consistent with the preference for venue where a defendant resides, because it is undisputed that one of the defendants resided in Kandiyohi County when the action was brought.
"If the county designated in the complaint is not the county in which the cause of action or some part thereof arose and if there are several defendants residing in different counties, the trial shall be had in the county upon which a majority of them unite in demanding ...." Minn. Stat. § 542.10. To determine the legislature’s intended meaning of a word or phrase within a statute, a court will "often consider dictionary definitions." Shire v. Rosemount, Inc. , 875 N.W.2d 289, 292 (Minn. 2016) (). Courts must interpret the statute "so as to give effect to each word and phrase." Id. "When a word or phrase has a plain meaning, we presume that the plain meaning is consistent with legislative intent and engage in no further statutory construction." Id.
Defendants observe that "joint and several liability" can apply when there are only two defendants, and argue that "several defendants" should be interpreted to apply whenever there are separate or distinct defendants, without regard to number.
The parties and the district court have cited numerous dictionary definitions for "several," and virtually all of the cited dictionaries confirm that the word "several" can mean both "separate" and "more than two." The district court referred to an 1898 dictionary issued in the era when the term first appeared in the statute, which indicated that "several" can mean: Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 744 (Springfield, Mass., G & C Merriam Co. 1898). Modern dictionaries confirm that "several" continues to have the same (multiple) meanings. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1652 (3d ed. 1992); see also The Random House Dictionary of the English Language 1754 (2d ed. 1987) ).
When legal phrases appear in statutes, courts may "look to legal dictionaries" to define their terms. Getz v. Peace , 934 N.W.2d 347, 354 (Minn. 2019). But the phrase "several defendants," like the phrase "voluntary recreational program" construed in Shire , 875 N.W.2d at 292, consists of an adjective modifying a noun, not a legal term of art. Nor has there been any showing here that "several defendants" is a legal term of art appearing in multiple statutes. Cf. id. ( "pursuant to"). But legal dictionaries cited by the district court and the parties, as well as those surveyed by this court, recognize the same multiple meanings. See, e.g. , Black’s Law Dictionary 1583 (10th ed. 2014) ).
Because "several" may mean separate or more than two, we conclude that the statutory language is ambiguous and subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, and we turn to other tools "to assist our inquiry into legislative intent." Rodriguez , 931 N.W.2d at 634. "Every law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions." Minn. Stat. § 645.16. This principle is also sometimes referred to as the canon against surplusage, and it requires that each word be given a distinct and non-identical meaning. State v. Thonesavanh , 904 N.W.2d 432, 437 (Minn. 2017). Because "defendants" is already plural, interpreting "several defendants" to include two separate defendants would give no distinct meaning to the word "several." Only by interpreting it to mean more than two defendants does "several" have a distinct meaning from "defendants." The defendants have not explained how their preferred interpretation of "separate" defendants would give effect to each word.
The defendants cite no case interpreting section 542.10 in the way that they propose. Instead, they cite two cases originally brought in counties in which no defendant resided, and in both cases, the supreme court held that venue was properly changed to counties where at least one defendant allegedly resided. Dworsky v. Herbst , 254 Minn. 295, 95 N.W.2d 19, 20, 26-27 (1959) (); Rust-Parker Grocery Co. v. Swanson , 243 Minn. 156, 66 N.W.2d 756, 756-57 (1954) (). Those cases do not support the defendants’ argument that the district court in this case erred in interpreting the statute to deny a request to change venue from the county in which a defendant did reside. In fact, even in a case involving a demand by a single defendant, the supreme court has specifically described the statutory right to demand a change of venue as applying only "[w]here there are more than two defendants,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manselle v. Krogstad (In re Krogstad), A20-0076
...that two (and only two) defendants do not meet the statutory criteria of "several defendants" in section 542.10. In re Krogstad , 941 N.W.2d 750, 754 (Minn. App. 2020). The court of appeals concluded that "several" must mean "more than two." Id. at 753. Specifically, after consulting variou......