895 N.W.2d 623
Minn.2017Background
- AWUM (nonprofit) and Sinuon & Lawrence Leiendecker have a long-running series of lawsuits; the present suit (fifth) alleges malicious prosecution based on AWUM’s prior suits.
- AWUM moved to dismiss under Minnesota’s anti-SLAPP statutes (Minn. Stat. §§ 554.01-.06), claiming immunity for acts involving public participation; the statute permits dismissal if the responding party cannot overcome immunity by clear and convincing evidence.
- This Court previously interpreted § 554.02 to require the responding party to produce evidence (not mere allegations) and to carry the burden to persuade the trier of fact (Leiendecker, 848 N.W.2d 224). The case was remanded for application of that standard.
- On remand the district court found the Leiendeckers failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that AWUM’s acts were not immunized, but also held § 554.02 unconstitutional as applied because it required the court (not a jury) to make factual findings that could dispose of a legal tort claim.
- This appeal followed; the Supreme Court affirms the district court’s conclusion that § 554.02 (subd. 2, clauses 2–3) is unconstitutional as applied to tort claims at law because it infringes the state constitutional right to a jury trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Leiendeckers waived their constitutional challenge to § 554.02 | Waiver did not occur because the challenge was not ripe until remand and district-court consideration | AWUM argued the Leiendeckers should have raised the challenge earlier in petitions for review/rehearing | No waiver: claim not ripe earlier; no forfeiture of constitutional challenge |
| Whether the district court exceeded remand instructions by addressing constitutionality | District court could decide constitutionality after applying this Court’s standard on remand | AWUM argued remand limited district court to only factual application of standard | District court did not exceed remand scope; allowed to address constitutionality |
| Whether § 554.02 (subd.2 clauses 2–3) violates the Minnesota constitutional right to jury trial when applied to tort claims at law | Leiendeckers: statute shifts factfinding and a higher burden (clear and convincing) to judge, usurping jury’s role | AWUM: statute provides efficient gatekeeping and immunity; denial of jury until immunity resolved is permissible | Held unconstitutional as applied: clauses require district court to resolve disputed factual issues by clear and convincing evidence, usurping jury factfinding and burden of persuasion |
| Whether the unconstitutional clauses are severable from § 554.02 | Leiendeckers: unconstitutional clauses render the procedure invalid as applied; severance not viable | AWUM: legislative immunity scheme should stand with severance | Clauses are inseparable from § 554.02; the section is unconstitutional as applied to tort claims at law |
Key Cases Cited
- Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minn., 848 N.W.2d 224 (Minn. 2014) (this Court’s prior interpretation that the responding party must produce clear and convincing evidence and persuade the trier of fact)
- Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed Dist. v. Stengrim, 784 N.W.2d 834 (Minn. 2010) (statutory background on anti-SLAPP scope)
- United Prairie Bank—Mountain Lake v. Haugen Nutrition & Equip., LLC, 813 N.W.2d 49 (Minn. 2012) (standard of review for constitutional and statutory interpretation)
- Flour City Fuel & Transfer Co. v. Young, 185 N.W. 934 (Minn. 1921) (protecting right to jury trial; jury-trial right must remain inviolate)
- Davis v. Cox, 351 P.3d 862 (Wash. 2015) (Washington Supreme Court holding a similar anti-SLAPP statute violated that state’s jury-trial guarantee)