LeRoy Smithrud v. City of St. Paul
746 F.3d 391
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Smithrud owned rental properties in St. Paul and a Minneapolis apartment and the cities declared them nuisances and sought demolition in 2008.
- Demolitions were ordered on August 26, 2008 (Minneapolis) and August 20/September 10, 2008 (St. Paul).
- Smithrud initially sued in Minnesota state court; those complaints were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, affirmed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
- Smithrud filed nearly identical federal complaints on November 3, 2010 asserting FHA, federal civil rights, and state-law claims.
- District court dismissed for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction and later held FHA claims time-barred; on appeal the state-law claims were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a second motion to dismiss on remand | Smithrud argues the cities filed another motion to dismiss. | Minneapolis asserts no second motion; district court simply set briefing on federal claim viability. | No second motion to dismiss; district court properly required briefing on federal claim viability. |
| Whether exclusion of evidence was proper | Smithrud contends the district court improperly excluded submitted exhibits. | Cities argue the court may exclude non-compliant exhibits under Rule 12(b)(6) practice. | District court properly limited consideration to relevant, properly submitted exhibits; no error. |
| Whether FHA claims were timely | Smithrud contends tolling or administrative action before HUD preserved timely filing. | Cities argue 2-year statute barred claims; no tolling shown. | Statute of limitations barred the FHA claims; no tolling established. |
| Whether Smithrud failed to state a federal claim | Smithrud contends Monell or civil-rights theories were stated. | Cities argue no Monell elements and no viable federal claims. | Claims failed to state a federal claim; Monell elements not pleaded. |
| Whether denial of motions to alter or amend was reversible | Smithrud sought relief under Rule 52(b) and Rule 59(e). | District court acted within discretion; no manifest error. | No abuse of discretion; motions to alter or amend denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard requires facial plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2005) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 186 F.3d 1077 (8th Cir. 1999) (court may consider certain materials beyond the complaint)
- Admiral Theatre Corp. v. Douglas Theatre Co., 585 F.2d 877 (8th Cir. 1978) (district court may exclude exhibits not disclosed as ordered)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of New York City, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability for official policy or failure to train)
- Atkinson v. City of Mountain View, 709 F.3d 1201 (8th Cir. 2013) (Monell liability framework in 8th Circuit)
- Smith v. Boyd, 945 F.2d 1041 (8th Cir. 1991) (district court may sua sponte address Rule 12(b)(6) issues)