Mark R. Zweber v. Credit River Township

underlying negligent as the same conduct

design claim.

Affirmed. J.,

CHUTICH, part took no in the of this

consideration case. ZWEBER, Appellant, R.

Mark TOWNSHIP,

CREDIT RIVER al., Respondents.

et

No. A14-0893.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July D. J. Reuvers and Kuboush-

Paul Jason Condon, ek, Bloomington, Iverson Reuvers MN, respondents. for Sanders, McGrath, Anthony B. Lee 'U. Forbes, Meagan for A. Institute Jus- MN; tice, Minneapolis, R. and William Justice, Bellevue, Maurer, for Institute WA, for amicus Jus- curiae Institute tice. Thomson, Graven, Kennedy &

James J. Chartered, MN, for amicus Minneapolis, curiae Minnesota Association Town- ships.

OPINION Justice, STRAS, relationship involves the be- This case juris- of appeals’ tween the court diction governmental

local broad entities of Minnesota district courts power hear brought actions and determine under 42 (2012), civil-rights U.S.C. a federal (cid:127) Zweber, an Mark statute. owner land, parcel undeveloped brought large against 1983 action section Scott Township, alleging that and Credit River property deprived had him they just compensation and violated his rights. The district equal-protection court subject-matter juris- concluded it had court, action, over but the diction According to reversed. appeals, the district court lacked jurisdiction exclusive because Zweber’s a, of certiorari seek writ of appeals. from the court Zweber v. (.ZweberII), Twp. A14- River No. Credit *1 (MinmApp. 2016 WL 16, 2016). Fafinski, Nelson, Mar. Because the district court Nathan Thomas M. W. Adam, Zweber’s section 1983 has over Lesley J. Vir- Steven V. Roses action, MN, PLLC, Park, the decision of the court Law, Brooklyn reverse tus appeals. appellant. a-proposed application

I. re-subdivi- parcel, sion now called the Estates large parcel owns undevel- Zweber time, Liberty This Creek. based Township River oped land Credit Planning recommendation of the Commis- (“Township”), which is located Scott sion, County Board denied the applica- County (“County”). contacted tion. April develop in 2003 to a County officials development parcel,

plan for the appealed timely Zweber County the Among Creek.' Liberty which he named to thé Board’s decision Minnesota Court of things, County dis- other Zweber and the Appeals, certiorari, granted which a writ of to where locate roads the cussed within decision, County’s reversed the and or- and how to the flow of subdivision stem County approve to ap- dered the Zweber’s adjoining neighborhoods. into The traffic plication. Zweber Scott Bd. of in the culminated submission discussions (Zweber I), A09-1990, Comm’rs No. plat preliminary application, Zweber’s 2733275, *2, (MinmApp. July WL *8 parcel to proposed the 39 2010). which divide years For over 2 after the court of lots and outlot. decision, appeals’ the County took no for- approve mal action to the proposed re- adjoining develop- The then-owner subdivision. as the let- Territory ment known wrote a County ter to the that criticized the Liber- brought present Zweber the plan. primary The ty complaint Creek action, which includes claims Creek, Liberty proposed in that the was County in Scott Ú.S.C. District preliminary plat application, cause a would complaint, Court. his amended he through in traffic substantial increase the money damages allegations seeks based Territory. County officials informed Zwe- (1) County the took his property that: change he to a ber that would road have just compensation by placing con- plat in the to the proposed connection ease approval ditions on the of his applica- through Territory. of traffic flow the tion; County’s and treatment , 2006-2012, him from Several, period during months later, County the Scott applica- which it considered his various Planning (“Planning Commission Commis- tions, rights. equal-protection sion”) violated approval recommended of Zweber’s requests Zweber also writ mandamus plat on the amended condition to ordering County commence inverse- Liberty Creek development phas- occur compensate to proceedings condemnation County (“County es. Scott Board taking. him the Board”) imposed then another condition: required was to construct a barri- Zweber (cid:127) summary judgment, In motion for Liberty Creek cade at border between County argued that the district court did Territory that remain was jurisdiction subjeet-matter be- have place development until the 90% com- was cause Zweber’s avenue re- exclusive plete. eventually ap- Board view the seek proved plat application Zweber’s final ap- from court of a writ Developer’s Agreement, the Master peals. court rejected The district signed. latter Zweber which concluding County’s argument, it has Despite approval jurisdiction Board’s over section 1983 actions. The reversed, reasoning plat, proceed Zweber appeals final did Instead, Liberty approval subject to con- development. Creek "plat action, Zweber is a submitted ditions only by Subject-matter within “refers reviewable authority ‘to hear and days,” and that Zweber’s “constitutional court’s determine separate particu distinct from of actions particular claims are not class II, questions’ presented 2015 WL lar to the court for its action." granted peti- A *1. We decision.” v. & M Constr. Giersdorf Inc., (Minn.2012) (quot tion for review. Price,

ing 214 Minn. Robinette II. (1943)). The determi particular nation of whether court has presented in this question jurisdiction depends on case question whether the court has the stat authority adju courts utory power adjudi and constitutional arising out dicate constitutional (citing cate the case. Id. Steel Co. v. Citi by government entit made local decisions Env’t, 83, 89, zens a Better 523 U.S. appeals that The court ies.1 concluded (1998)); 118 S.Ct. 140 L.Ed.2d 210 it, court, exclu not the would have district (“Sub Losh, see also 755 N.W.2d jurisdiction over both of Zweber’s sive ject-matter jurisdiction power is a court’s claims constitutional because the pre to hear and cases that determine are decisions on the and re-subdivision court.”). to the sented quasi-judicial applications were “separate constitutional claims are not Minnesota’s district courts are courts of II, distinct” from them. Zweber 2015 WL jurisdiction general that have the constitu *4-5; see also Minn.Stat. tional authority hear “all civil and crimi (2014) (“The § party apply 606.01 shall Const, VI, § nal cases.” Minn. art. 3. The writ.”). Appeals the Court The jurisdictional case, question in this there that, appeals’ resolving if court view is fore, statutory authority to the relates a constitutional claim does not “stand particular types district courts to hear the decision, quasi-judicial from a alone” of claims involved here: an inverse-con only way certiorari is the to raise demnation claim and constitutional claims preserve claim. constitutional § brought under U.S.C. 1983. We have II, 2015 WL at *4. held that of certain review decisions parties’ dispute government The over which local entities are court authority only by has the to decide Zweber’s review Minn.Stat. 606.01, § question subject-matter grants claims raises a jurisdic exclusive jurisdiction that we de State tion to of appeals petitions review novo. the court over Losh, (Minn.2008). See, e.g., Cty. 755 N.W.2d for a writ of certiorari.2 question ing preemption argu 1. Because the answer to this resolves Zweber’s address case, ment, we need not leaving address Zweber’s other simply we are discussion of argument 60-day period that issue a preemptive scope § of 42 U.S.C. 1983 for certiorari, § writ of see Minn.Stat. 606.01 day another and a different case. (2014), preempted by 6-year statute separate conflates concurrence two claims, limitations for section 1983 see Owens questions. question that the court of Okure, 235, 249-50, 488 U.S. 109 S.Ct. answered, appeals granted on which (1989); we 102 L.Ed.2d 594 see also Minn.Stat. review, 541.05, 1(5) required (2014). was whether Minnesota law Accordingly, § subd. bring disagree Zweber to his constitutional claims in a suggestion with the concur is, petition deciding, rence erwise, for a implicitly that we are or oth writ certiorari —that review is “that some section 1983 claims ... exclusive under by By question should resolved certiorari.” declin the facts of case. The Heights, Park which would have made them Washington v. Oak reviewable (Minn.2012); filing petition also of a through see parties appeals. § certiorari with the court (stating 606.01 Minn.Stat. 606.01; Appeals” Cty. Washing for a Minn.Stat. see to the Court of apply “shall ton, certiorari). (recognizing at 539 District courts do not writ of “quasi-judicial of a jurisdiction municipal over certiorari”). ity only by are that must be resolved a certiorari reviewable claims general, Indep. Dokmo v. Sch. Dist. decisions “affect the appeal. See (Minn. rights of analogous a few individuals to the No. 676-78 1990) (holding declaratory-judgment way they by proceed are affected ings.” Interstate action in court is unavailable when Power Co. v. Nobles Comm’rs, Bd. decision is avail (Minn.2000). certiorari). case, In this if the deci able even quasi-judicial, sions of the proceedings local conducted concluded, it still entities can in two government result possible that the district court would have decisions, categorization of types of adjudicate the derivative by cer- whether review which determines pleaded..in constitutional obligatory. type tiorari The first complaint. amended legislative. legis-' Decisions are decision appeals recognized The court of a such they applicability if have broad lative possibility, applied requiring a but test rights public generally.” “affect the “separate to constitutional claims be A Cty. Washington, at 539. 818 N.W.2d of County’s from quasi-judicial distinct” fil legislative by can be reviewed decision court to decisions district have complaint in ing summons and district a II, 2015 jurisdiction. Zweber WL id. If court. See decisions test, by *4. at This first articulated appli on and re-subdivision appeals City Minneapolis court of v. of legislative, cations were the district court Meldahl, (Minn.App. 172 607 N.W.2d jurisdiction to review the would deci 2000), to derivative any consti sions themselves and derivative of petition raised in a a writ Ass’n, See Dead Lake Inc. tutional claims. the facts surround when “an inquiry Cty., Tail 134-35 v. Otter N.W.2d inquiry ing” the claims would “involve (Minn.2005). into” them decisions II, possibility is that selves. See Zweber WL other by *4. a decision quasi-judicial, at Meldahl involved review, provides specific process apparently is whether a certio- concurrence answers appeals by is not available, rari review ques- review is which is a added)). (emphasis Yet the court available.” tion that no one asks us to address. For question appeals already re- of answered instance, con- "base[s] [its] the concurrence by solved the concurrence —whether certiora- statutory availability on reme- clusion Zweber—when it ri was available to dy” "that certiorari review and concludes County approve Zweber’s re- ordered the appeals to Zwe- the court was not available application in the 2010 certiorari subdivision statutory ber because he has a under I, appeal'. Zweber 2010 WL at *8. alleged § 42 U.S.C. 1983 for the violation Contrary argument, to the concurrence's added.) rights.” (Emphases his constitutional therefore, theo- certiorari review was See, Schlener, Zweber, e.g., actually Nelson v. retically he re- available to n (Minn.2015) (“Therefore, if ceived it. [a statute] is, building its-validity” a the decision Minneapolis whether demolish —that unreasonable, arbitrary, capri nuisance. was that"it -considered a. appeals concluded method of re cious—then “exclusive 170. court at building chapter could certiorari under 606.” that the owner view Id.; Smith, bi’ing an inverse-condemnation see also Williams Instead, (Minn.2012) against City. (concluding Id. a required to-“assert tak- any owner .that that a tort “[did] involve through petition ... for a ing inquiry government entity’s occurred into” em appeals].” court of [the of certiorari ployment decision was cer- case, appeals ex- review); In this Dodge Cty., Id. tiorari .Dietz v. to divest from (Minn.1992) the rule Meldahl tended (stating con- jurisdiction over all courts conducting district a court deter certiorari review claims, including brought those stitutional arbitrary, “was mines “sep- that are not 42 U.S.C. unreasonable, fraudulent, un oppressive, from quasi-judicial distinct” arate and law,-or theory an erroneous der II, WL it”). decision. See If support evidence to resolution 1128985, *4-5. depend of the claim does not the validi decision, ty of the then the adopt “sepa decline We by filing an party may 'the claim raise from Meldahl3 In test rate and distinct” Cty. Washing action in a court. case, fact, does not the resolution ton, 818 all, rule at require us announce new rule we announced the alloca fully rule existing addresses Washington consistent with another district courts tion of between decisions, our Sher Willis involving in cases and the court (Minn.1996). burne, 555 N.W.2d 277 quasi-judicial decisions. Willis, county we addressed whether “whether cer- Washington, we addressed employee who had terminated could been method” the “exclusive tiorari reviéw” was bring a for separate action defamation a denial of city to a council’s re review defamatory district court when the state alleged overpay an quest for a of refund employee’s to the dis ments were related for water services. 818 ment sewer and at on re Id. Based' the missal. 278-79. explained that the N.W.2d We quirement quasi-judicial that of review district court did certiorari, decisions be we determined unjust-enrichment over ah was exclu that the brought by county the “the claim because sive venue to review the deci termination “upon of depended outcome the claim” the itself, regardless of sion the em of ... validity quasi-judicial decision.” [a] for framed the claim as one 542., County the from ployee Id. at Under rule of con underlying wrongful termination or breach of Washington, the basis “[w]hen 280,. Notably, of of a munici tract. See id. at the claim review how ever, a to reached different conclusion pality’s decision we determine decision, It is not to true we the 'defama- termination that characterized v, fact, tion a new test. the next sen- claims from Sher- announce Willis of burne, Willis, "separate as from the tence which examines whether distinct" require inquiry would "an to em- decision terminate Willis’s defamation (Minn.1996). discretionary ployment. county decision N.W.2d into board's Willis,” phrase But we used the rela- to terminate is the closest we came describe tionship announcing a 555 N.W.2d at 282-83. between Willis’s defamation claims test. claim, decision, challenged the respect defamation school board’s in with Willis’s adequate statutory disputably knew an reasoning that whether had rem edy: declaratory-judgment a publish- false action. See before statements By seeking in- a party declaratory “not ing a third id. at 676-77. them would , law, remedy at county judgment, into a any inquiry board’s the-teacher volve sought discretionary who reinstatement Dokmo could decision Wil- to terminate rights like have her in district Accordingly, lis.” Id. at 282-83. court. vindicated reiterating Yet in of County Washington, stands for exclusive nature Willis certiorari, aggrieved emphasized we our party that an proposition “deci bring arising express preference” sions far more than a- may a claim district 674; governmental entity’s quasi- certiorari review. Id. see out a local toward at adjudication as Tischer v. Hous. judicial so also & Redev. Auth. decision long 427, 431-32 Cambridge, inquiry into the claim does not require an (Minn.2005) (stating validity of review of a the decision. termi exclusively by nation was certiora- decision embrace a rule would concurrence though ri for even Tischer breach sued adopt. us to Un party urges neither employment contract under Minn.Stat. rule, may a party the concurrence’s der. (2014)); Moberg Indep. 469.014 Sch. petition a file a for writ No. 281, (Minn. Dist. reyiew entity’s quasi- governmental local 1983) (“[A] proper certiorari is the writ adequate judicial only when an challenging form action school from at- is unavailable. law Aside closing decision, rather than the declarato creating a from conflict rule case.”). judgment brought in this ry County Washington, 818 N.W.2d Dokmo, therefore, on ás well Based long line casts doubt cases Willis, Washington, rule.4 In Dokmo proposed concurrence’s Williams, pro reject concurrence’s No. Independent School District exclusivity posed determining rule “only example, we concluded of certibrari review. deci appealing” a school board’s method these that certio- deny teacher’s reinstatement re The rule .from cases is sion 459 rari when a re- quest “by certiorari.” exclusive quires inquiry 673. We reached conclu the teacher who decision. See despite sion the fact that Wash- failing ‘discretionary-decision' agency’s is not 4. concurrence criticizes us for The review.”); test, ,Cty. Washington, adopt "separate and . to certiorari Meldahl’s distinct” 542; Willis, says already adopted.” at 555 at 818 N.W.2d which it we "have N.W.2d view, disagree. support puzzling the finds 282-83. What is most about We Our which however) that, Williams, criticism, is in both Willis is that we used concurrence’s and n tests, compatible is phrase "separate to describe all the least with the and distinct” Meldahl rule, relationship would the the claims in -the concurrence’s which allow between those underlying quasi-judicial brought in deci- cases claim to be district whenever fact, exists, sions, regardless remedy at adequate not to new In in law announce a test. cases, “separate phrase "separate the claim and dis both we used the and is whether n together apply today the we frbm a decision. distinct” test tinct’’ Williams, rule, words, Washington. in -other would from concurrence's (“We substantially the in at that a tort circumstances N.W.2d conclude narrow available, claim, negligent misrepresenta- is which is certiorari review such which tion, opposite ‘separate exactly from of hoW the Meldahl test and distinct’ the táe that (cid:127) Meldahl, agency’s operates. at 172- government employment 607 N.W.2d decision See 1 any inquiry does not involve and the Willis, 542; County’s quasi-judicial 555 tion of the deci- at ington, Dokmo, fact, 282; complaint clear at sions. In the makes at N.W.2d N.W.2d rule, development parcel longer of the acknowl- applying this we 676-77. money damages for in the feasible and seeks overlap is some edge that there wrongs allegedly by the constitutional committed underlying Zweber’s facts County. Adjudicating equal-pro- on Zwe- Zweber’s decisions claims and depend claim applications. tection therefore does re-subdivision plat and ber’s Nevertheless, overlap validity [County’s] quasi- presence “upon the judicial Cty. Washington, 818 themselves need decision.” enough; the claims at 542. separate and distinct N.W.2d completely not be court to have over the in this case The constitutional claims Rather, if consti- it is sufficient them. claims from Dietz. stand contrast require the district do tutional claims “wrongful Dietz involved claims for dis- of the Coun- court to examine charge” “unlawful and discrimination” ty’s decisions. Dodge County’s arising out of decision employment. takings require claim does not terminate Dietz’s complaint, Dietz validity of Coun- her into the examination damages, reinstate- actually sought “compensatory it ty’s because assumes claim, ment, damages anguish.” validity. takings as Zwe- mental their it, observed, especially light of the presupposes that condi- Id. We pleads ber request, plat application on reinstatement cause placed “[t]he his tions alleged complaint valid, alleges they Dietz’s would “constitute^] but rights par- of the compensat- require must be and liabilities taking [he] [for] claim, by adjudicate this the fact- ties be fixed terms To ed.” contract, propriety to determine but the coun- finder will have terminating placed plat applica- ty’s exercise of discretion conditions Willis, 240; at regulatory taking her.” Id. tion constituted (“Just Dietz, did, requests as in rein- If it then be 282 Willis property. Zweber will benefits, statement, pay, fringe back damages or writ of mandamus lost entitled to pay.”). Accordingly, and front ordering the initiation of inverse-condem- held judicial against property. obliged to seek proceedings nation Dietz “was county’s review of the termination decision Zwe- the same conclusion on We reach Dietz, by writ of certiorari.” claim. al- equal-protection ber’s 240; College City Nw. Arden cf. leges treatment differential Hills, (Minn.1979) “in Township comparison to simi- court, (stating that not the district larly property The facts situated owners.” court, independently city should equal-protection span underlying the concluding zoning council’s approximately years, extending to the building permit that the denial of a period both before and after the “arbitrary”). on plat decisions his and re-subdivision Willis, wrongful-discharge un- Unlike the and applications. See 555 N.W.2d in claims Dietz (noting supporting that the events Wil- lawful-discrimination and Willis, “rights of the began year a and liabilities” lis’s defamation claim over by the County’s quasi-judicial parties in this case are not “fixed before the decision him). claim, to propriety [C]ounty’s of the decision” takings to Like the terminate plat ap- re-subdivision deny or modifica- Zweber’s and does seek reversal Zweber Willis, here, ordinarily conflicting 555 N.W.2d at 282. which involve plications. disputed all, claims can and facts. a Each of Zweber’s constitutional evidence After inquiring upon into the certiorari is “not a adjudicated be writ which Indeed, issues,” try Canfield, validity County’s of the decisions. State 166 Minn. 414, 415, 181, 181 (1926), request injunctive relief 208 N.W. Zweber does decisions, tribunal, County’s appeals, as an seeking appellate to “undo” court fact, weigh sharply contrasts with the reinstate- cannot evidence trier Nelson, requests Accordingly, made in Dietz and 859 N.W.2d ment Willis. (“[Dietz’s] Dietz, County’s objection change at 240 our See does that, regardless for conclusion request damages for reinstatement and on the anguish highlights plat mental the fact that her and re-sub or ordinary applications legislative claim is not failure division were on or perform goods quasi-judicial, juris a contract the district court has Willis, services.”); adjudicate at 282. diction to Zweber’s constitution plead- does not “creative And Zweber use al claims. challenge to

ing” bring a veiled

validity decisions. III.

Washington, reasons, For foregoing we reverse appeals the decision the court of and County public- raises a

The nevertheless to the remand district court for further objection allowing policy Zweber’s proceedings opinion.5 consistent with proceed. complains claims to The dividing the review and Reversed remanded. adjudication decisions and the de- unnecessarily subjects rivative claims local HUDSON, J., part took no governmental liability to expanded entities or consideration decision of this case. protracted proceedings. CHUTICH, J., having been suggests procedure that the better instead member of this at the time of court would have been have first submission, part to<j>k argued petition for a writ of certiorari consideration of this case. placed approval that the conditions unconstitutional, then, if his GILDEA, (concurring). Chief Justice appeals accepted argu- the court had agree I majority that the dis- ment, subsequently pursued takings subject-matter jurisdiction trict court has However, nothing claim in court. district property’s takings over a owner’s 606.01, law, § nor Minn.Stat. in our case protection claims equal U.S.C. suggests approach that such an is re- (2012).' majority holds quired. “certiorari review is when a claim exclusive explain inquiry also fails factor adjudicate how can decision.” While this relevant, majori- I type presented may constitutional claims believe that the acknowledge (holding 5. We will 87 L.Ed.2d 126 likely need to make a decision on party’s takings ripe section 1983 claim is not inverse-condemnation claim before it can ad- procedure [provided by “until it used the has judicate takings his section 1983 claim. See just compensa- state] and been denied Planning Cty. Reg’l Williamson Comm’n v. tion”). Bank, 172, 195, Hamilton 473 U.S. 105 S.Ct. 614 (1961)); 19, misapplies in this- case 20 this factor see also State Bd.

ty v. Pub. and of analysis City 204, jurisdiction.ques- Wing, Red 134 Minn. Works of (1916) (“Certiorari conclude, I 158 incomplete.. N.W. tion .otherwise 977 is legal will not lie if relators have other ade long-established -accordance quate remedy.”). specifically And we have constitutional claims principles, that “[cjertiorari recognized that is appropriate subject to certiorari be- are not review quasi-judicial proceedings to review property statutory- has a owner cause is no and other where there remedy process. outside the certiorari adequate remedy.” Bear Rod White & Therefore, respectfully I concur. City Gun Club v. 388 Hugo, N.W.2d Following years of efforts de- failed . (Minn.1986) 739, 741 property Town- velop his Credit River majority does not whether address ship, brought Zweber Mark this action in remedy, legal Zweber an adequate has and as- District' Court. Scott Zweber majority rejects ‘separate “the and 42 al- serted claims under U.S.C. applied by test” the court of ap distinct’ (1) leging Scott violated his Twp., v. Credit River peals, No. equal rights by intentionally protection A14-0893, (Minn. at *4 2015 WL differently similarly him from sit- treating 2015). App. Instead, the majority Mar. owners, property and Scott uated single, announces a simple rule: “certiora- just his property took ri is re exclusive when claim review compensation improper-condi- imposing quires inquiry validity of into the approval applica- of his tions on previous ap decision.” sought damages sec- tion. Zweber under peals involving jurisdiction, issues of we for the tion violation alleged 1983 have considered “the underlying rights Equal under the Protection Clause basis of the Fourteenth Amendment and municipality’s decision de Takings Just Clauses of Compensation and Washington its validity.” Cty. termine ' sought the Fifth Amendment. He also Heights, v. Oak Park N.W.2d Minn,Stat. of mandamus writ (Minn.2012); see also Willis v. 586.Q1-.12 (2014) §§ compel com- Sherburne, Cty. 282-83 proceed- mencement eminent domain (Minn.1996), But also have we considered ings. “separate whether the claims and are dis ‘ juris subject-matter here issue At Smith, tinct.” v. Williams N.W.2d diction over Zweber’s (Minn.2012). Williams, we Although we have constitutional claims. ‘separate tort “is held that a claim that qua distinguished legislative between agency’s distinct’ from the government si-judicial .resolving- questions employment decision and does involve see, e.g., jurisdiction, inquiry into agency’s ‘discretionary Ass’n, Cty., Lake Inc. Otter Dead Tail subject is not decision’ to certiorari re (Minn.2005), we fact, 134-35 . Id. In view.” specifically conclud (<[t]he long held negligent misrepresentation ed that a ‘extraordinary’ claim, ‘is brought by for an assis candidate granted reme there an adequate where- tant basketball coach at the position Uni law,’” ordinary Minnesota, dy versity course Schlener, 288, 292 separate it is Nelson review “because (Minn.2015) (quoting University’s Aastad v. from Bd. distinct Minn, Comm’rs, 357, 359, (emphasis to hire him.” Id. at added). Thus, claims, majority Among the to alleges other Zweber “decline[s] that (1) “imposition of already adopted.1 we the the adopt” a test have barricade cohdi- irrational, tions constitutes an arbitrary, event, majority the resolves this capricious, illegal and unconstitutional the conclusion that Zwe- based-on act”; the conditions the County require not ber’s constitutional claims do placed upon property his throughout the validity into an the the examination development process were “unenforcea- County’s quasi-judicial decisions. The ma- ble,” “illegal,” basis,” a “rational “if jority explains aggrieved par- that “wholly arbitrary,” and motivated the ty’s inquire into n “malicious or injure bad faith intent validity the decision— I difficulty seeing Zweber.” have how the is, that whether the decision was unrea- resolution these claims would not re- sonable, or arbitrary, capricious the —then quire inquire a court to validity the party may raise such a claim County’s the determine wheth- petition for a writ of certiorari filed with unreasonable, the er decisions were arbi- appeals.” According the court the trary, capricious. The fact that Zweber majority, adjudicating Zweber’s constitu- seeking money damages, is and not the not require tional claims does a court to reversal or County’s modification the validity County’s into "the inquire decisions, goes to the reme- quasi-judicial decisions because is Zweber dy, not the of the nature Zweber claims. challenging validity not of those deci- seeking money damages is because devel- example, regard For sions. with opment longer of the property feasi- claim, takings majority that indicates “arbitrary ble as a result of the conditions” complaint “actually [the] assumes va- County imposed." majority As the rec- lidity” County’s decisions. The ma- ognizes, seeking “money dam- jority also adjudicating determines that ages wrongs allegedly for the committed Zweber’s constitutional does not de- claims by County.” A court would deter- upon pend validity County’s “wrongs” County mine that- the committed quasi-judicial decisions because Zweber money damages awarding before for those decisions; seeking to “undo” those majority’s wrongs. Consequently, the con- rather, seeking only money damages. he is clusion that constitutional claims do require inquiry into the I not construe Zweber’s claims the do quasi-judicial decision is on the based false way majority. same as the com- Zweber’s premise complaint that “assumes on the plaint'focuses conditions the appli- the" on placed that conditions his imposed development proper- cation were valid.” ty, imposition including the barri- conditions, as well as his allegations Notwithstanding my disagreement cade differently that him majority’s analysis, treated I conclude that from similarly property jurisdic- situated owners. district court has decision, recognizes majority 1. The "we character- termination (cid:127) may ized the defamation claims from a new Willis to announce test.” That Sherburne, true, Williams, 'separate explained and distinct' but in that we "extending] reasoning Wil- from the decision-to were our terminate Wil- ” deciding they employment” concluding lis's lis a tort claim was not subject to certiorari review. 555 N.W.2d to certiorari review where- the claim Nonetheless, majority explains "separate from the and distinct” Univer- Williams, phrase sity’s employment “we used to describe the decision. relationship between Willis’s defamation N.W.2d at 814. justice I defects of claims. to redress obvious constitutional tion over Zweber’s available”). availability ordinary remedy of a on the no is conclusion which my base matter, remedy. As a threshold statutory Willis, result a similar We reached issued of certiorari will be “a writ 283, 555 at where we addressed N.W.2d adequate relief may have party where the subject-mat- court whether the district had he com- which against grievance jurisdiction county employee’s ter over or allowed it should plains, and claim disability discrimination under remedy by appeal, is a there issued when Rights Act. Minn. Minnesota Human See ex of review.” State or other mode some (2014). 363A.08, § 3 con- Stat. subd. We Olson, 210, 56 Minn. rel. Wischstadt disability discrimination cluded (1894). 477, 212-13, In other 477 57 N.W. belonged in the district court be- words, permit reme- law does two availability statutory cause of the “a If a 57 N.W. at 477. dies. See id. at cause of action” the Minnesota Hu- under specific process for re- “provides statute Act, though prosecution Rights man “even view, by court of review certiorari of the alleged of the violation Minnesota Nelson, 859 appeals is not available.” Rights may implicate Act at least Human at 292.2 N.W.2d discharge.” aspects some of the decision I Accordingly, would resolve this I see no 555 reason by by holding that review statutory availability treat the cause not available to Zwe- appeals § action under 42 U.S.C. a federal remedy statutory ber because he has statute, differently rights civil from a stat- alleged § 1983 for the 42 U.S.C. under utory under cause the Minnesota rights. It violation of his constitutional Rights Human Act. courts that federal and state well settled Moreover, the “limited and deferential” jurisdiction over constitu have concurrent compati is not nature certiorari review arising 1983. under section tional claims alleged judicial ble with constitu Thiboutot, 1, 100 448 3 n. Maine v. U.S. county by tional violations officials under (1980); also 65 L.Ed.2d 555 see S.Ct. Williams, 1983. 820 U.S.C. Drown, 729, 735, 129 Haywood v. 556 U.S. 813; Hous. & see Tischer v. Redev. Auth. (2009) (noting L.Ed.2d 920 S.Ct. (Minn. Cambridge, 693 N.W.2d courts that “state courts as well federal 2005) (explaining deci providing a forum are entrusted with “granted are sions executive bodies def rights federal violated vindication usurpation judiciary erence avoid acting or local officials color of state body’s pre of the executive administrative law”). Therefore, a section state because Further, rogatives”). litigation challenge the 1983 action is available to con most constitutional will involve actions, constitutionality facts; flicting disputed how evidence appropriate is not to de certiorari review ever, of certiorari is “not a writ a writ See, e.g., cide the constitutional claims. try issues.” upon State Can Rapids, Horn v. Coon 414, 415, (Minn.1981) field, 166 Minn. N.W. (stating that certiora- (“No taken, extraordinary remedy “is evidence find- ri considered answering majority attempts majority to make is 2. contends that I am distinction if, conclude, question. majori- meaningful. Obviously, wrong Specifically, as I available, ty says is not then certio- that the issue in the case is whether certiorari review any remedy not offer for the review is the exclusive rari review does claims, claims, certio- exclusive or non-exclu- not whether constitutional constitutional view, my sive. rari review available. made, (Minn.2012) ings fact or conclusions are a statutory {“When sense.”). judgment right there is no the usual to review municipal body’s quasi- weigh judicial lacking, court of does not evi- decision is we have con- Nelson, dence as trier fact. cluded certiorari is an appropriate, Therefore, exclusive, regardless method to judicial seek re- added)). view.” (emphasis the other obstacles appeals, court of constitutional sim- claims majority suggests that we im have ply are not suited certiorari review pliedly abrogated this longstanding rule appeals.3 sustaining certiorari of qua review certain decisions, majority si-judicial does not consider though even plain availability of a of statutory cause action. tiffs'in bring those cases had sought ’ only availability statutory Not is the actions Declaratory under Minnesota’s Act, Judgments cause of action omitted from the majority’s §§ Minn.Stat. 555.01-.16 (2014). analysis, majority affirmatively E.g., but the re Indep. Dokmo v. Sch. Dist. 11, jects 671, that “a party may (Minn.1990); rule file a No. 459 N.W.2d 677 petition 281, of Moberg Indep. a writ review a v. Sch. Dist. No. 336 510, (Minn.1983). governmental entity’s quasi-judicial local 519 majori an only adequate remedy ty’s when reliance on misplaced these cases is law is unavailable.” But this rule not a no statutory because there was right of new rule or a “proposed rule.” This rule review those cases. A declaratory judg part jurispru has been essential our ment procedural action “is a device availability on the through parties may dence certiorari re vindicate sub Weavewood, nearly years. E.g., view for 100 State v. legal rights.” stantive Inc. v. Works, 204, 205, 158 Inv., LLC, Bd. 576, Pub. 134 Minn. S & P Home 977, (“Certiorari (Minn.2012). N.W. 977 will lie underlying 577 And “the quasi judicial proceedings review the ... substantive law forms foundation municipal boards when there is no for a declaratory judgment action.” Id. at right adequate no (stating complaint other rem 579 that “a requesting edy.”, quoted declaratory present in Aastad v. Bd. relief must a substan Comm’rs, 357, 359, 260 110 cogniza Minn. tive cause would be 19, (1961)); (citation Cty. Washington nondeclaratory see also ble suit” emit ted) (internal omitted)). City Heights, v. Park Oak marks quotation addition, liberty there 3. are constitutional con that a state "is not at to shut majority's implicit cerns associated .with to federal con courthouse door claims that it. determination some section policy” by siders at with its local chan odds challenge claims—those that do neling against cor section 1983 state county’s decisions—should be resolved officers into a court of claims with rection certiorari. See Charchenko v. procedural re limited remedies and strict Stillwater, (8th 47 F.3d 983 n. 2 Cir. event, quirements). deprivation "[t]he 1995) (cautioning that Minnesota state matter state "may court’s that a section 1983 claim ruling dis 1983 suits does not affect-the federal court, brought in not be the state trial original jurisdiction.” trict Charchen court’s presumably appended must therefore be to a ko, majori Accordingly, F.3d proceeding appellate in the state ty’s holding may also undermine the federal court, may suspect Suprem well be under the aim of uniform section 1983 treatment acy Casey, Clause" and Felder v. 487 U.S. cases in and state courts. See Wilson federal (1988)); 108 S.Ct. 101 L.Ed.2d 123 Garcia, 471 U.S. S.Ct. Drown, 729, 740, Haywood v. 556 U.S. cf. (1985) 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (2009) (holding S.Ct. 173 L.Ed.2d 920 cites, majority there was In the cases Minnesota, Respondent, providing law STATE statutory substantive board decisions of the school

review challenging school the individuals adequate board decisions did SOLBERG, Appellant. Miles Jacob was there- remedy; certiorari legal Dokmo, See fore available. No. A15-0242. declaratory judgment (holding that a of Minnesota. Supreme Court chal- proper procedure nota action is decisions); Moberg, lenging school board July (concluding that a de- 336 N.W.2d at prop- not “the judgment action is claratory challenging of action for a school form

er decision”). case, con-

closing statute,

trast, grounded in are the claims adequate § is an and there

42 U.S.'C.

remedy at law.4 sum, hold that district would I jurisdiction over has claims, any constitutional resolution

inquiry into of. requires an examination rely I

validity decisions. holding law

instead our well-established for review is not available

that certiorari

statutory of action. causes availability declaratory appeals.” Co. v. Nobles general of a Interstate Power Comm’rs, zoning judgment municipal 574 n. in the con Bd. (Minn.2000); Golf, LLP precludes see Mendota because text certiorari review (Minn. provided Heights, Legislature judicial review of Mendota has cities, towns, 2006) procedure county (stating proper zoning that "the decisions zoning reviewing city’s a adjustment See a decision in matter boards of in the district court. 394.27, (2014) declaratory judgment (provid generally ac § will Minn.Stat. subd. (footnote omitted)). ing person aggrieved by tion” a decision right zoning here county adjustment of Scott issue has the board (cid:127) court); exception happen to fall within "a narrow the district Minn.Stat. rule,’’.which 462.361-, (providing general because "exists subd. 1 provided judicial legislature ‘‘[a]ny person aggrieved by re a decision has zoning counly governing body adjustments and decisions of boards." or board of view Co., Municipal appeals” acting pursuant at 574 n. 5. Power Interstate may Consequently, majority’s rule that Planning "re broad Act have the decision when appropriate is exclusive a claim the dis "certiorari review viewed statutes, court”). qua inquiry into the Based on these trict "general si-judicial does not account for mat "even decision” rule” zoning statutory cause of action there should be reviewed in ters where actions court, statutory right of review. by certiorari in the court of

Case Details

Case Name: Mark R. Zweber v. Credit River Township

Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date Published: Jul 27, 2016

Citation: 882 N.W.2d 605

Docket Number: A14-893

Court Abbreviation: Minn.