Zweber v. Credit River Twp.

• Decision Date: 27 July 2016
• Docket Number: No. A14–0893.,A14–0893.
• Citation: 882 N.W.2d 605
• Parties: Mark R. ZWEBER, Appellant, v. CREDIT RIVER TOWNSHIP, et al., Respondents.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

882 N.W.2d 605

Mark R. ZWEBER, Appellant,

v.CREDIT RIVER TOWNSHIP, et al., Respondents.

No. A14–0893.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 27, 2016.

Thomas M. Fafinski, Nathan W. Nelson, Steven V. Rose, and Lesley J. Adam, Virtus Law, PLLC, Brooklyn Park, MN, for appellant.

Paul D. Reuvers and Jason J. Kuboushek, Iverson Reuvers Condon, Bloomington, MN, for respondents.

Anthony B. Sanders, Lee U. McGrath, and Meagan A. Forbes, Institute for Justice, Minneapolis, MN; and William R. Maurer, Institute for Justice, Bellevue, WA, for amicus curiae Institute for Justice.

James J. Thomson, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis, MN, for amicus curiae Minnesota Association of Townships.

OPINION

STRAS

, Justice.

This case involves the relationship between the court of appeals' certiorari jurisdiction to review quasi-judicial decisions of local governmental entities and the broad power of Minnesota district courts to hear and determine actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)

, a federal civil-rights statute. Mark Zweber, an owner of a large parcel of undeveloped land, brought a section 1983 action against Scott County and Credit River Township, alleging that they had deprived him of his property without just compensation and violated his equal-protection rights. The district court concluded that it had subject-matter jurisdiction over Zweber's action, but the court of appeals reversed. According to the court of appeals, the district court lacked jurisdiction because Zweber's exclusive remedy was to seek a writ of certiorari from the court of appeals. Zweber v. Credit River Twp. (Zweber II ), No. A14–0893, 2015 WL 1128985, at *1 (Minn.App. Mar. 16, 2015). Because the district court has jurisdiction over Zweber's section 1983 action, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals.

I.

Zweber owns a large parcel of undeveloped land in Credit River Township (“Township”), which is located in Scott County (“County”). Zweber contacted County officials in April 2003 to develop a plan for the development of the parcel, which he named Liberty Creek. Among other things, Zweber and the County discussed where to locate roads within the subdivision and how to stem the flow of traffic into adjoining neighborhoods. The discussions culminated in the submission of Zweber's 2006 preliminary plat application, which proposed to divide the parcel into 39 lots and 1 outlot.

The then-owner of an adjoining development known as the Territory wrote a letter to the County that criticized the Liberty Creek plan. The primary complaint was that Liberty Creek, as proposed in the preliminary plat application, would cause a substantial increase in traffic through the Territory. County officials informed Zweber that he would have to change a road connection in the proposed plat to ease the flow of traffic through the Territory.

Several months later, the Scott County Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) recommended approval of Zweber's amended plat on the condition that the Liberty Creek development occur in phases. The Scott County Board (“County Board”) then imposed another condition: Zweber was required to construct a barricade at the border between Liberty Creek and the Territory that was to remain in place until the development was 90% complete. The County Board eventually approved Zweber's final plat application and the Master Developer's Agreement, the latter of which Zweber signed.

Despite the County Board's approval of the final plat, Zweber did not proceed with the Liberty Creek development. Instead, in 2008, Zweber submitted to the County an application for a proposed re-subdivision of the parcel, now called the Estates of Liberty Creek. This time, based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the County Board denied the application.

Zweber timely appealed the County Board's decision to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which granted a writ of certiorari, reversed the County's decision, and ordered the County to approve Zweber's application. Zweber v. Scott Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs (Zweber I ), No. A09–1990, 2010 WL 2733275, at *2, *8 (Minn.App. July 13, 2010)

. For over 2 years after the court of appeals' decision, the County took no formal action to approve the proposed re-subdivision.

In 2013, Zweber brought the present action, which includes claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

, in Scott County District Court. In his amended complaint, he seeks money damages based on allegations that: (1) the County took his property without just compensation by placing conditions on the approval of his plat application; and (2) the County's treatment of him from 2006–2012, the period during which it considered his various applications, violated his equal-protection rights. Zweber also requests a writ of mandamus ordering the County to commence inverse-condemnation proceedings to compensate him for the taking.

In a motion for summary judgment, the County argued that the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction because Zweber's exclusive avenue for review of the County's decisions was to seek a writ of certiorari from the court of appeals. The district court rejected the County's argument, concluding that it has jurisdiction over section 1983

actions. The court of appeals reversed, reasoning that the County's “plat approval subject to conditions is a quasi-judicial action, which is reviewable only by certiorari appeal within 60 days,” and that Zweber's “constitutional claims are not separate and distinct from that action.” Zweber II, 2015 WL 1128985, at *1

. We granted Zweber's petition for review.

II.

The question presented in this case is whether the court of appeals or district courts have the authority to adjudicate constitutional claims arising out of decisions made by local government entities.¹ The court of appeals concluded that it, not the district court, would have exclusive jurisdiction over both of Zweber's constitutional claims because the County's decisions on the plat and re-subdivision applications were quasi-judicial and the constitutional claims are not “separate and distinct” from them. Zweber II, 2015 WL 1128985, at *4–5

; see also Minn.Stat. § 606.01 (2014) (“The party shall apply to the Court of Appeals for the writ.”). The court of appeals' view is that, if resolving a constitutional claim does not “stand alone” from a quasi-judicial decision, a certiorari appeal is the only way to raise and preserve the constitutional claim. Zweber II, 2015 WL 1128985, at *4.

The parties' dispute over which court has the authority to decide Zweber's claims raises a question of subject-matter jurisdiction that we review de novo. State v. Losh, 755 N.W.2d 736, 739 (Minn.2008)

. Subject-matter jurisdiction “refers to a court's authority ‘to hear and determine a particular class of actions and the particular questions' presented to the court for its decision.” Giersdorf v. A & M Constr. Inc., 820 N.W.2d 16, 20 (Minn.2012) (quoting Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526, 8 N.W.2d 800, 804 (1943) ). The determination of whether a particular court has subject-matter jurisdiction depends on whether the court in question has the statutory and constitutional power to adjudicate the case. Id. (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 89, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) ); see also

Losh, 755 N.W.2d at 739 (“Subject-matter jurisdiction is a court's power to hear and determine cases that are presented to the court.”).

Minnesota's district courts are courts of general jurisdiction that have the constitutional authority to hear “all civil and criminal cases.” Minn. Const. art. VI, § 3

. The jurisdictional question in this case, therefore, relates to the statutory authority of district courts to hear the particular types of claims involved here: an inverse-condemnation claim and constitutional claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have held that review of certain decisions of local government entities are subject to review only by certiorari under Minn.Stat. § 606.01, which grants exclusive jurisdiction to the court of appeals over petitions for a writ of certiorari.²

See, e.g.,

Cty. of

Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights,

818 N.W.2d 533, 539 (Minn.2012) ; see also Minn.Stat. § 606.01 (stating that parties “shall apply to the Court of Appeals” for a writ of certiorari). District courts do not have subject-matter jurisdiction over claims that must be resolved in a certiorari appeal. See

Dokmo v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 11, 459 N.W.2d 671, 676–78 (Minn.1990) (holding that a declaratory-judgment action in district court is unavailable when review of a quasi-judicial decision is available by certiorari).

The proceedings conducted by local government entities can result in two types of decisions, the categorization of which determines whether review by certiorari is obligatory. The first type of decision is legislative. Decisions are legislative if they have broad applicability and “affect the rights of the public generally.” Cty. of Washington, 818 N.W.2d at 539

. A legislative decision can be reviewed by filing a summons and complaint in district court. See id. If the County's decisions on Zweber's plat and re-subdivision applications were legislative, the district court would have jurisdiction to review the decisions themselves and any derivative constitutional claims. See

Dead Lake Ass'n, Inc. v. Otter Tail Cty., 695 N.W.2d 129, 134–35 (Minn.2005).

The other possibility is that the County's decisions were quasi-judicial, which would have made them reviewable only through the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari with the court of appeals. Minn.Stat. § 606.01

; see

Cty. of Washington, 818 N.W.2d at 539 (recognizing that the “quasi-judicial decisions of a municipality are reviewable only by certiorari”). In general, quasi-judicial decisions “affect the rights of a few individuals analogous to the way they are affected by court proceedings.” Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 617 N.W.2d 566, 574 (Minn.2000)....