Stern 1011 First St. S., LLC v. Gere

979 N.W.2d 216

STERN 1011 FIRST STREET SOUTH, LLC, et al., Respondents,

v.Kenneth A. GERE, et al., Appellants.

A21-0904

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: August 31, 2022

Francis J. Rondoni, Christopher P. Renz, Gary K. Luloff, Chestnut Cambronne, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondents.

Scott G. Knudson, Scott M. Flaherty, Maren M. Forde, O. Joseph Balthazor, Jr., Taft Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellants.

OPINION

MOORE, III, Justice.

This case presents procedural and ultimately jurisdictional questions concerning the timeliness of an appeal in a civil case. On May 10, 2021, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants and judgment was entered accordingly, but the summary judgment order mistakenly included language dealing with an entirely unrelated matter. Shortly thereafter, defendants submitted a letter to the district court under Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 115.11 requesting permission to file a motion for reconsideration to remove the errant language. On May 21, 2021, without responding to or referencing the letter, the district court issued an amended order removing the errant language but leaving unchanged the summary judgment analysis and determination. An amended judgment was entered on the same day. On July 19, 2021—70 days after the May 10 order and entry of judgment, but 59 days after the May 21 amended order and entry of judgment—plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, referencing the May 21 order. Defendants questioned the court of appeals’ jurisdiction, asserting that plaintiffs’ appeal was untimely. After receiving briefing from the parties on the timeliness issue, the court of appeals construed defendants’ Rule 115.11 letter as a permissible tolling motion under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01, subd. 2, and accepted jurisdiction. We granted defendants’ petition for review. Because a request for permission to file a motion to reconsider pursuant to Rule 115.11 does not toll the time for appeal, we reverse.

FACTS

This case arises from a dispute between owners of a commercial property in Hopkins over the allegedly fraudulent behavior of one of the owners during the refinancing of the property. Specifically, in December 2017, respondents Stern 1011 First Street South, LLC and Haberman 1011 First Street South, LLC (the "Stern/Haberman parties") sued appellants Kenneth A. Gere,¹ Gere 1011 First Street South, LLC, and Planned Investments, Inc. (the "Gere parties"), asserting various claims of financial irregularities related to Gere's management of the property's refinancing in 2007. See Stern 1011 First Street South, LLC v. Gere , 937 N.W.2d 173, 175–76 (Minn. App. 2020) (providing details of the claims), review denied (Minn. Mar. 25, 2020).

The Gere parties moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Stern/Haberman parties’ claims were untimely and lacked merit. On May 10, 2021, the district court granted the Gere parties’ motion, ordered that judgment be entered on the order, and dismissed the Stern/Haberman parties’ complaint with prejudice. Judgment was entered that same day. The district court's May 10, 2021 order also included discussion of an overlong reply brief, which led the court to strike the last 25 pages of the Gere parties’ reply brief on the basis that it exceeded the page limits set in Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 115.05. This portion of the order, however, clearly referred to memoranda submitted in a different case, involving different parties.

On May 19, 2021, counsel for the Gere parties, who had prevailed at summary judgment, electronically filed and served a two-paragraph letter to the district court seeking to correct the order's erroneous reference to the reply brief from another case. The letter stated it was sent "pursuant to Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 115.11 to request permission to seek limited review of a portion of the Court's May 10, 2021 Order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment." Specifically, the letter identified the confusion between the two cases and concluded that because "Defendants’ reply brief complied with applicable page limits, Defendants respectfully request permission to seek reconsideration merely to amend this portion of the Court's May 10 Order."

Two days later, on May 21, 2021, the district court issued an amended summary judgment order without directly responding to the Gere parties’ letter or holding a hearing on a motion to reconsider. The updated order struck the misplaced discussion of an overlength reply memorandum and explained in a new asterisked sentence on the first page that the order had "been amended due to the Court accidentally including verbiage from another matter in the original Order, causing this one to be edited and to be an Amended Order."² The district court directed that judgment be entered on the amended order and dismissed Stern's complaint with prejudice. An amended judgment was accordingly entered by the court administrator the same day.

On July 19, 2021, the Stern/Haberman parties filed a notice of appeal from "an Order of the Court filed on" May 21, 2021. On July 20, 2021, the court of appeals issued an order construing the notice of appeal as seeking review of the May 21, 2021 judgment. On July 30, 2021, the Gere parties filed their statement of the case, asserting that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because it was untimely. Specifically, the Gere parties cited Dennis Frandsen & Co., Inc. v. Kanabec Cty. , 306 N.W.2d 566, 570 (Minn. 1981), for the proposition that the "time to appeal an issue determined by the trial court begins to run upon entry of judgment ‘and does not begin to run anew by reason of an amendment which leaves that determination undisturbed.’ " In response, the court of appeals formally questioned its jurisdiction and the parties submitted informal memoranda on the topic.

On August 17, 2021, the court of appeals issued the order from which the Gere parties now appeal. See Stern 1011 First Street South, LLC v. Gere , No. A21-0904, 2022 WL 3904323, Order at 1 (Minn. App. Aug. 17, 2021). The court of appeals accepted the Stern/Haberman parties’ argument that the Gere parties’ May 19, 2021 correspondence was functionally a motion to amend to correct a clerical error in the May 10, 2021 order in compliance with Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.01 and therefore tolled the time to appeal the May 10, 2021 judgment under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01, subd. 2. Id. at 2–4. Noting that "[t]he register of actions does not indicate that a party has served notice of filing of the May 21, 2021 amended order to limit the time to appeal," the court of appeals concluded that "[t]he time to appeal the May 10, 2021 judgment therefore has not expired." Id. at 4. The court construed the appeal as taken from the May 10, 2021 order and accepted jurisdiction. Id .

We granted the Gere parties’ petition for review.

ANALYSIS

The Gere parties assert that the Stern/Haberman parties’ appeal from the amended summary judgment order was untimely and therefore there is no appellate jurisdiction. Construction and application of the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure is a question of law, which we review de novo. Klapmeier v. Cirrus Indus., Inc. , 900 N.W.2d 386, 391 (Minn. 2017). When the facts—such as dates—governing a jurisdictional issue are not in dispute, we also review the jurisdiction question de novo. Madson v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. , 612 N.W.2d 168, 170 (Minn. 2000). We interpret procedural rules in accordance with their plain language and purpose. Rubey v. Vannett, 714 N.W.2d 417, 421 (Minn. 2006).

I.

The Gere parties argue that the court of appeals erred by treating their Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 115.11 request for reconsideration (which does not toll the time for appeal) to remove inadvertently included language in the order granting summary judgment in their favor as a Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.01 motion to correct a clerical error in the judgment (which does). The Stern/Haberman parties, on the other hand, maintain that the framing of the letter as a request for reconsideration is irrelevant because the letter effectively sought the relief afforded by Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.01 —that is, correction of a clerical error. Because what the Gere parties filed was a request for permission to file a motion to reconsider pursuant to Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 115.11 —a request that does not toll the time for appeal—and not a Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.01 motion, we reverse.

Motions for reconsideration in district court civil cases are governed by Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 115.11. The rule states that motions to reconsider are generally prohibited without express permission from the court, which will be "granted only upon a showing of compelling circumstances." Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 115.11. Thus, before a party can even file a motion to reconsider, counsel must first ask the court for permission. The rule requires that these requests "shall be made only by letter to the court of no more than two pages in length." Id. The Advisory Comment to the 1997 Amendments to Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 115.11 explains that 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."

The deadline to file a notice of appeal in a civil case is 60 days after entry of judgment. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01, subd. 1. Unless otherwise provided by law, "if any party serves and files a proper and timely motion " expressly listed under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01, subd. 2, the time for appeal tolls until the district court rules on the last outstanding motion.³

Id. , subd. 2 (emphasis added); Madson , 612 N.W.2d at 172. Subdivision 2 was among several significant amendments made to the appellate rules in 1998. The amendments were intended to simplify appellate practice "in the hopes of creating ‘less confusion’ about the timing of appeals." Madson , 612 N.W.2d at 171 (quoting Minn. R. Civ. P....