Lockhart v. Cnty. of Hennepin

1

Theodore Carl Lockhart, Sr., Plaintiff,^[1] v. County of Hennepin, Defendant.

No. 27-CV-23-2367

Tax Court of Minnesota, Regular Division, Hennepin County

September 27, 2024

This matter came before the Honorable Wendy S. Tien, Judge of the Minnesota Tax Court, on the motion of Theodore C. Lockhart Sr. to transfer this case to the district court for lack of jurisdiction. This Order supplements the court's order denying the motion on the record at the hearing on September 23, 2024.

Theodore Carl Lockhart, Sr. is self-represented.

John Pasowicz, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney, represents Defendant Hennepin County.

Wendy S. Tien, Judge

The court, upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein now makes the following:

ORDER

1. Mr Lockhart's motion is denied. 2. The Scheduling Order dated August 15, 2024, remains in full force and effect.

3. Parties must comply with the provisions in this court's March 1, 2024 Order.

4. The court strongly encourages Mr. Lockhart to refer to self-help resources when preparing for appearances in this court. These are available at https://mn.gov/tax-court/about/selfhelp/.

5. This Order incorporates the attached Memorandum.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MEMORANDUM

I. Background

The court will not repeat the procedural history of this case except as is relevant to the disposition of the motion at issue.^[2] Mr. Lockhart initiated this action by filing a complaint in district court, generally alleging that the County and two individual defendants, David J. Hough and James D. Verbrugge, who are no longer parties to this case,^[3] improperly valued his property for tax purposes and claiming that Defendants discriminated against him and violated his constitutional rights during the valuation and appeal process.^[4] Following a series of events that have been described at length previously, the district court transferred this case to this court,^[5] and Mr. Lockhart promptly sought to transfer this case back to district court,^[6] which this court denied.^[7]In addition, this court heard several additional matters - namely, Mr. Lockhart's motion for summary judgment and motion for default judgment,^[8] as well as the Defendants' pending motions to dismiss on various grounds.^[9]

Relevant to the current motion, on August 15, 2024, this court filed an order which, among other things, granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss as to all claims in the Complaint other than those against the County arising under chapter 278 for valuation date January 2, 2022.^[10] For the avoidance of doubt, the Omnibus Order dismisses the following:

Claims under Counts I-III, including claims under Minnesota Statutes § 273, § 274, § 375.192, § 383B, § 383B.25, § 383B.102 § 412.651, and 363A.11, § 363A.12, the ADA, the MGDPA, and common law claims for unjust enrichment, other than those stating specific claims concerning valuation and unequal assessment under chapter 278; ^[11] All demands for relief under Counts I-III other than the relief provided in chapter 278;^[12]

Claims for injunctive, declaratory, and mandamus relief;^[13]

Claims under Count IV (constitutional claims);^[14]

Claims as to valuation years 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 (dismissed with prejudice); claims as to valuation year 2023 (dismissed without prejudice).^[15]

On August 22, 2024, Mr. Lockhart filed the present motion, seeking to transfer the complaint to district court "for lack of subject matter jurisdiction ab initio"^[16] Mr. Lockhart contends "the complaint arises entirely outside of tax law ab initio" "because neither did the Plaintiff Petition at any time nor could any of Defendants' liabilities arise from tax law."^[17] Mr. Lockhart contends that because the complaint asserts claims for multiple years, as well as constitutional claims and multiple claims arising under statutes other than chapter 278, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over those claims and must transfer the Complaint back to district court.^[18]

II. Governing Law

A. Motions for Reconsideration

"Motions to reconsider are prohibited except by express permission of the Tax Court, which will be granted only upon a showing of compelling circumstances. Requests to make a motion and any responses to such requests must be made only by letter to the Tax Court of no more than two pages in length, a copy of which must be served on all opposing counsel and selfrepresented litigants." Minn. R. 8610.0080.

Before promulgating Rule 8610.0080 in 2023, this court generally considered motions to reconsider based on standards similar to those applicable to those under district court General Practice Rule 115.11. Specifically, "courts will 'rarely' exercise their power to reconsider decisions, and 'are likely to do so only where intervening legal developments have occurred ... or where the earlier decision is palpably wrong in some respect.'" 1300 Nicollet, LLC v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 990 N.W.2d 422, 434 n.9 (Minn. 2023) (quoting Stern 1011 First St. S, LLC v. Gere, 979 N.W.2d 216, 220 (Minn. 2022) (quoting Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.11 advisory comm. cmt.- 1997)). This court has expressly endorsed this standard. ILHC of Eagan, LLC v. Cnty. of Dakota, No. CO-01-7361, 2003 WL21459248, at *1 (Minn. T.C. June 17, 2003) (observingthat "[m]otions for reconsideration ... should be approached cautiously and used sparingly.").

III. Analysis

Mr. Lockhart contends that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction "ab initio'" and accordingly could not "change the nature" of the Complaint by dismissing various of the claims in the Complaint.^[19] The County contends that the relief Mr. Lockhart requests constitutes a procedurally improper request for reconsideration of this court's dismissal of his claims.^[20]

Each of the claims that Mr. Lockhart contends are outside this court's jurisdiction - and that Mr. Lockhart seeks to transfer back to the district court - is a claim that this court dismissed in the Omnibus Order. Mr. Lockhart references the claims for multiple years' relief,^[21]constitutional claims, ^[22] and the "civil tort, constitutional violations, criminal allegations, ADA &MHRA violations, malfeasance, negligence, data practices violations, the 2022 and 2023 multiyear valuation assessment relief, equitable relief, coercive relief, and statutory penalties relief' in the Complaint.^[23] This court addressed the legal basis for the dismissal of each of these claims in the Omnibus Order.^[24] Not only that, but this court also denied as moot Mr. Lockhart's motion to transfer this case to the district court on subject matter jurisdiction grounds at that time, because all of the claims forming the basis for his motion were dismissed.^[25]

Accordingly, to the extent Mr. Lockhart seeks to dispute the outcome of the motions to dismiss, or the jurisdictional motion the court denied in the Omnibus Order, the proper procedure is appellate review at an appropriate point in the case,^[26] or, if leave to do so is granted, reconsideration by this court, which must be requested under the procedure in Rule 8610.0080. "Requests to make a motion and any responses to such requests must be made only by letter to the Tax Court of no more than two pages in length, a copy of which must be served on all opposing counsel and self-represented litigants." Minn. R. 8610.0080. Such a letter must include a showing of "compelling circumstances" for reconsideration, id., such as a demonstration that "intervening legal developments have occurred" or that "the earlier decision is palpably wrong in some respect." 1300 Nicollet, 990 N.W.2d at 434 n.9; Stern, 979 N.W.2d at 220.

The motion to transfer is denied.

---------

^[1] This Order takes no position concerning whether parties are properly denominated as plaintiffs, petitioners, defendants, or respondents and no substantive inferences should be drawn from the use of a title in connection with a party. As this court previously dismissed all defendants other than Hennepin County from this case, this case is captioned Lockhart v. County of Hennepin in accordance with the Third Amended Scheduling Order (filed Aug. 15, 2024) ¶ 3.

^[2] For a comprehensive procedural history of the case to date, please refer to the order dismissing claims against David J. Hough and James D. Verbrugge on August 15, 2024. Order. (1) Dismiss. Claims; (2) Den. Default and Jurisd. Mots. As Moot; (3) Den. Summ. J. (filed Aug. 15 2024) (the "Omnibus Order").

^[3] The Omnibus Order explicitly limits claims to those against the County arising under chapter 278 for January 2, 2022. Omnibus Ord. ¶ l.a-c.

^[4] See generally 4th Jud. Dist. Ct. No. 27-CV-23-2367 ("Dist. Ct."), Am. Compl., Docket. 20 (filed Feb. 22, 2023) (the "Complaint").

^[5] Dist. Ct. Docket 88 (the "Transfer Order").

^[6] Notice Mot. Mot. Order Show Cause 2 (filed Feb. 13, 2024) (the "Show Cause Motion"); Pl.'s Mot. Order Show Cause Mem. Law Supp. (filed Feb. 13, 2024) (the "Show Cause Mem.").

^[7] Order (1) Dismissing Claims (2) Denying Default and Jurisdictional Motions as Moot; and (3) Denying Summary Judgment (filed Apr. 2, 2024, as amended Apr. 5, 2024) ("Apr. 2 Ord.") ¶4.a.

^[8] Apr. 2 Ord. ¶ 4.a.

^[9] Second Am. Sched. Ord. ¶ 4.a (filed Apr. 17, 2024).

^[10] Omnibus Ord. ¶ l.a-c.

^[11] Omnibus Ord. Slip Op. 25.

^[12] Omnibus Ord. Slip Op. 25.

^[13] Omnibus Ord. Slip Op. 25.

^[14] Omnibus Ord. Slip Op. 26.

^[15] Omnibus Ord. Slip Op. 26-27.

^[16] Notice Mot. & Mot. for Tax Ct. to Transf. Compl. To Dist. Ct. for Lack of Jurisd. Ab Initio 1 (filed Aug. 22, 2024) ("Jurisd. Mot."); Mem. Law Supp. for Tax Ct. to Transf. Compl. To Dist. Ct. for Lack of Jurisd. Ab Initio 4 (filed Aug. 22, 2024) ("Mem. Supp. Jurisd. Mot.").

^[17] Mem. Supp. Jurisd. Mot. 4.

^[18] Mem. Supp. Jurisd. Mot. 4-10. The district court previously...