2016 WL 7404689
D. Minn.2016Background
- In 1998 Minnesota settled with tobacco companies, requiring perpetual payments to the State; settlement released "all claims of the State of Minnesota relating to the subject matter of th[e] action."
- Settlement proceeds were deposited into the State general fund and were never distributed to individuals.
- Curtis litigation culminated in a Minnesota Supreme Court decision holding the 1998 Settlement released consumer claims related to "light" cigarettes.
- In 2011–2014, Foster (and Harne plaintiffs) sued Minnesota officials alleging the State’s release of consumer claims constituted a taking requiring compensation; Minnesota state courts dismissed the Harne suit as time-barred and denied review.
- Foster filed this federal suit in 2016 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting a Fifth Amendment taking; defendants moved to dismiss.
- The district court granted the motion, holding Foster’s claim barred by res judicata and untimely under the applicable six-year statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Foster's federal takings claim is barred by prior state-court judgment (res judicata) | Harne only resolved state-law inverse-condemnation; federal Fifth Amendment claim became ripe only after state-court process ended | Harne involved same parties/issues and produced a final judgment; res judicata applies | Court: Res judicata bars Foster’s suit — prior state judgment precludes relitigation |
| Whether the § 1983 claim is time-barred | Limitations did not start to run until Minnesota Supreme Court denied review in Curtis (post-Harne) | Limitations began earlier (1998 settlement); state six-year statute applies and expired long before 2016 filing | Court: Claim untimely under Minnesota’s six-year statute; dismissal warranted |
| Whether collateral estoppel prevents re-litigating timeliness and ripeness | Foster: federal claim ripeness depended on state-court outcome, so limitations should toll | Defendants: Harne already decided when limitations began; collateral estoppel precludes relitigation | Court: Collateral estoppel applies; will not revisit Harne’s determination on when limitations began |
| Whether continuing payments create a continuing taking that restarts statute of limitations | Foster: ongoing settlement payments make the injury continuing, so limitations has not run | Defendants: Taking was the settlement that extinguished claims, not the payment method; Harne rejected continuing-injury theory | Court: Following Harne, payments do not make the injury continuing; limitations expired |
Key Cases Cited
- Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585 (8th Cir. 2009) (pleading plausibility standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions vs. factual allegations in pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Poe v. John Deere Co., 695 F.2d 1103 (8th Cir. 1982) (res judicata precludes relitigation of claims)
- Laase v. Cty. of Isanti, 638 F.3d 853 (8th Cir. 2011) (elements of res judicata under Minnesota law)
- Egerdahl v. Hibbing Cmty. Coll., 72 F.3d 615 (8th Cir. 1995) (applying state limitations period to § 1983 claims)
- Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656 (1987) (federal courts borrow state statute of limitations for § 1983)
- Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 186 F.3d 1077 (8th Cir. 1999) (court may consider matters of public record embraced by the pleadings)
- Beer v. Minn. Power & Light Co., 400 N.W.2d 732 (Minn. 1987) (Minnesota six-year limitations applied to takings claims)