865 N.W.2d 75
Minn. Ct. App.2015Background
- Feldmann operated a Nissan dealership in Bloomington and entered an asset purchase agreement to sell the business subject to relocation to Eden Prairie.
- Nissan North America exercised a right of first refusal, assigned purchase rights to Stephen McDaniels, who executed an APA to buy the dealership and later began operating it.
- Wayzata Nissan (appellant) alleged Nissan NA conspired to open a dealership ~7.6 miles from Wayzata and sought a temporary restraining order and expedited good-cause hearing under Minn. Stat. § 80E.14 (MVSDA).
- The district court denied the TRO, reasoning the MVSDA safe-harbor (the “5-and-5 rule” in § 80E.14, subd. 1) applies when a dealer actually relocates, even if ownership changed before relocation.
- McDaniels began operating at the Eden Prairie location; Wayzata appealed the TRO denial. The Court of Appeals considered mootness and statutory interpretation of when a relocating party qualifies as an “existing dealer.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal moot because the dealer already relocated? | Wayzata: relief still effective—court could enjoin continued operation if reversed. | McDaniels: relocation mooted TRO request; dismissal of claims renders appeal moot. | Not moot: appellate reversal could still afford effective relief; dismissal against McDaniels nonfinal. |
| Does the § 80E.14 safe‑harbor apply when relocation follows a change in ownership? (When is a relocating party an "existing dealer"?) | Wayzata: safe‑harbor shouldn’t shield a relocation when manufacturer formed relocation intent before the new owner became a dealer. | Nissan/McDaniels: safe‑harbor applies if the relocating party is an existing dealer at the time of relocation; notice/good‑cause not required. | Held: "existing dealer" status is determined at the time of relocation. McDaniels was an existing dealer when it moved; the 5‑and‑5 safe‑harbor applied, so notice and hearing were not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Twp. of Glendale, Scott Cnty., 180 N.W.2d 925 (Minn. 1970) (mootness—appeal dismissed when no effective relief possible)
- Hous. & Redev. Auth. ex rel. City of Richfield v. Walser Auto Sales, Inc., 641 N.W.2d 885 (Minn. 2002) (effective relief exception to mootness)
- Burkstrand v. Burkstrand, 632 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 2001) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd., 645 N.W.2d 413 (Minn. 2002) (statutory ambiguity and plain-meaning principles)