Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota
834 N.W.2d 741
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- AWUM is a Minnesota nonprofit operating a battered women’s shelter and advocacy services for the API community.
- Respondent Sinuon Leiendecker was AWUM’s executive director (1999–2004); Lawrence Leiendecker provided pro bono legal services (2002–2004).
- The parties’ dispute spans nearly a decade with four prior lawsuits and appeals before the fifth lawsuit in 2012, involving AWUM’s governance and financial actions.
- AWUM and Leiendeckers litigated over a 2003 board takeover, a declaratory-judgment action, and related disputes (advances, indemnification, and third-party claims).
- The 2012 action alleged malicious prosecution and asserted abuse-of-process, IIED, NIED, and loss of consortium, against AWUM and multiple current/former AWUM directors and affiliates; AWUM sought anti-SLAPP dismissal and, later, arbitration of one remaining claim.
- The district court granted partial anti-SLAPP dismissal, restricted some claims on absolute-privilege grounds, dismissed certain tort claims under Rule 12.02(e), and compelled arbitration of Sinuon Leiendecker’s remaining claims; the court’s order is affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the anti-SLAPP statute was properly invoked | AWUM argues Leiendeckers failed to meet the threshold public-participation link; reliance on pleading standard. | Leiendeckers contend the district court used proper pleading standard to invoke anti-SLAPP. | District court did not err in applying the pleading standard; burden shifts to Leiendeckers if threshold shown. |
| Whether the district court erred in absolute-privilege rulings | Leiendeckers challenge dismissal against Kautzer and restriction against Do/Shah. | Absolute privilege shields statements made in judicial proceedings and related testimony. | District court did not err; claims based on affidavits/testimony sound in defamation and are barred. |
| Whether abuse of process, IIED, NIED, and loss of consortium were properly dismissed under Rule 12.02(e) | Leiendeckers argue these claims are legally sufficient. | AWUM contends failure to state legally cognizable claims. | All four categories were properly dismissed for failure to plead valid claims. |
| Whether arbitration of Sinuon Leiendecker’s remaining claims was proper | Sinuon contends arbitration not properly invoked or scope unclear. | Settlement agreement and release requires binding arbitration for disputes over scope/applicability. | Arbitration proper; scope and waiver issues resolved in favor of arbitration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nexus v. Swift, 785 N.W.2d 771 (Minn.App.2010) (anti-SLAPP threshold and burden-shifting framework; clear-and-convincing standard applied after threshold showing)
- Marchant Inv. & Mgmt. Co. v. St. Anthony W. Neighborhood Org., Inc., 694 N.W.2d 92 (Minn.App.2005) (pleading standards at anti-SLAPP stage; 12(b) dismissal vs. anti-SLAPP framework)
- Marehant Inv. & Mgmt. Co. v. St. Anthony W. Neighborhood Org., Inc., 694 N.W.2d 92 (Minn.App.2005) (established pleading-standard approach to anti-SLAPP motions (no reliance on extra-pleading evidence))
- Surgidev Corp. v. Eye Tech., Inc., 625 F.Supp. 800 (D.Minn.1986) (mere filing of a lawsuit is not, by itself, abuse of process)
- Mahoney & Hagberg v. Newgard, 729 N.W.2d 302 (Minn.2007) (absolute privilege extends to statements in testimony; defeats related claims regardless of malice)
- Eclipse Architectural Grp., Inc. v. Lam, 814 N.W.2d 692 (Minn.2012) (defines process and supports abuse-of-process analysis in context)