890 N.W.2d 127
Minn. Ct. App.2017Background
- St. Paul police officer Michele Ward crashed a city squad car while running a personal errand, later entering an Alford plea to speeding; a related careless-driving charge was dismissed.
- The injured motorist sued Ward and the City of St. Paul.
- Interim City Attorney Laura Pietan conducted an investigation (reviewing police reports, plea transcript, internal affairs materials, witness statements, crash data, and accident-review-board notes) and notified Ward by letter she concluded Ward was not acting in the performance of duties and had engaged in malfeasance/willful neglect/bad faith, so the city would not defend or indemnify Ward under Minn. Stat. § 466.07, subd. 1.
- Ward filed a cross-claim in the underlying tort case seeking a judicial declaration/order requiring the city to defend and indemnify her.
- The city moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing Pietan’s determination was a quasi-judicial municipal decision reviewable only by writ of certiorari; the district court denied the motion.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding Pietan’s decision was quasi-judicial and that no statutory or rule-based right of district-court review exists under § 466.07, so certiorari was the exclusive remedy and the district court lacked jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Ward’s cross-claim for defense and indemnification under Minn. Stat. § 466.07, subd. 1 | Ward argued Nelson v. Schlener allows district-court review because a court is the appropriate fact-finder when an employer’s denial affects indemnity rights. | City argued Pietan’s denial was a quasi-judicial municipal decision and, because § 466.07 provides no statutory right of judicial review, the exclusive remedy is writ of certiorari and the district court lacked jurisdiction. | Court held the city attorney’s decision was quasi-judicial, § 466.07 supplies no right of district-court review, certiorari is the exclusive remedy, and the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. Schlener, 859 N.W.2d 288 (Minn. 2015) (interpreting statutory scheme for state-employee indemnification and holding a court may act as the trier of fact where statute provides for it)
- County of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights, 818 N.W.2d 533 (Minn. 2012) (when no statutory right of review exists, quasi-judicial municipal decisions are reviewable only by certiorari)
- Minn. Ctr. for Envtl. Advocacy v. Metro. Council, 587 N.W.2d 838 (Minn. 1999) (elements and limits of quasi-judicial characterization versus legislative/administrative actions)
- In re Occupational License of Haymes, 444 N.W.2d 257 (Minn. 1989) (failure to timely petition for certiorari precludes review of quasi-judicial decisions)
- County of Dakota v. Cameron, 839 N.W.2d 700 (Minn. 2013) (canon that courts should not add words or procedures to an unambiguous statute) }