Matthew E. Johnson Judge
Becker County District Court File No. 03-CV-22-1539
Considered and decided by Frisch, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Larkin, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Matthew E. Johnson Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. This appeal is taken from judgments entered June 30, 2023, and July 11, 2023, on orders granting motions for sanctions pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 11 and Minn. Stat. § 549.211 (2022). We affirm.
2. In early 2022, appellants Kathryn Ann Parenteau, Trustee of the Kenneth R. Kunzer Irrevocable Living Trust, and Kenneth R. Kunzer commenced this action against respondents Stuart G. Foster, DeAnna Foster, Carpets' N More Inc., Steve B. Ach, and Kim A. Ach. Appellants sought a declaration that certain real property they had purchased in 1997 is not subject to restrictive covenants that limit appellants' plans to build a residence on the property.
3. In November 2022, appellants purported to remove the case to federal district court. The Ach defendants filed a motion in federal district court to remand the case to state court. On December 19, 2022, appellants filed a document in state district court captioned "notice of dismissal." On that same date, the federal district court granted the Ach defendants' motion and remanded the case to state district court, reasoning that a plaintiff may not remove a case to federal court and that there was no basis for federal jurisdiction.
4. In early 2023, the Foster defendants and the Ach defendants separately moved to dismiss appellants' action for failure to state a claim. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e). Appellants did not appear at the motion hearing. On April 18, 2023, the district court filed an order granting the motions and dismissing the case with prejudice. The district court administrator entered judgment that same day.
5. In May 2023, the Foster defendants moved for sanctions pursuant to rule 11 and section 549.211. On June 30, 2023, the district court filed an order granting the motion. The district court found that appellants filed "excessive and frivolous pleadings" without "investigat[ing] the factual and legal support for" the pleadings. The district court awarded the Foster defendants $7,588 in attorney fees, costs, and disbursements and restricted appellants from filing another action concerning the restrictive covenants without the court's prior approval. The district court administrator entered judgment that same day.
6. Meanwhile, also in May 2023, the Ach defendants moved for sanctions pursuant to rule 11 and section 549.211. On July 11, 2023, the district court filed an order granting the motion. The district court again made findings that appellants had filed "excessive and frivolous pleadings" and awarded the Ach defendants $32,025 in attorney fees, costs, and disbursements. The district court administrator entered judgment that same day.
7. On July 10, 2023-one day before the district court granted the Ach defendants' motion for sanctions-appellants filed a notice of appeal from the April 18, 2023, and June 30, 2023 judgments. The appeal was assigned case number A23-0993. Appellants voluntarily dismissed that appeal.
8. On July 13, 2023, appellants filed their notice of appeal in this appeal. The Ach respondents moved to dismiss the appeal. On September 19, 2023, a special-term panel of this court denied the motion, deemed the appeal untimely with respect to the April 18, 2023 judgment, and construed the appeal as timely with respect to the June 30, 2023, and July 11, 2023 judgments.
9. Appellants have filed an appellate brief on a self-represented basis. We construe their brief to argue that, for three reasons, the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction when it filed orders and entered judgments on the respondents' motions for sanctions.
10. Respondents argue in response that appellants have forfeited their argument concerning personal jurisdiction by not presenting it to the district court. We agree. A party generally may not raise an issue on appeal if the party did not raise the issue in the district court. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988). Appellants did not question the existence of personal jurisdiction during district court proceedings. Thus, appellants have forfeited their challenge to the existence of personal jurisdiction.
11. The Foster respondents argue that appellants also waived their challenge to personal jurisdiction by commencing the case in the district court. We agree. "A party may waive a jurisdictional defense . . . by submitting itself to the court's jurisdiction and affirmatively invoking the court's power." Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith, 754 N.W.2d 377, 381 (Minn. 2008). Specifically, a party waives a jurisdictional issue by "fail[ing] to provide the court an opportunity to rule on the [jurisdictional issue] before affirmatively invoking the court's jurisdiction on the merits of the claim." Patterson v. Wu Family Corp., 608 N.W.2d 863, 868 (Minn. 2000). In this case, appellants invoked the district court's jurisdiction by commencing this action and never challenged the existence of personal jurisdiction. Thus, appellants have waived their challenge to the existence of personal jurisdiction.
12. We will consider appellants' arguments to the extent that they challenge subject-matter jurisdiction. In doing so, we assume without deciding that the issues raised actually implicate issues of subject-matter jurisdiction.
13. Appellants' first argument is that the district court did not have jurisdiction over the case when it granted respondents' sanctions motions in June and July 2023 on the ground that appellants had removed the case to federal district court. That argument ignores the fact that the federal district court remanded the case back to state district court on December 19, 2022. See Parenteau v. Foster, No. 22-CV-2913 (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2022). Thus, appellants' notice of removal did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction.
14. Appellants' second argument is that the district court did not have jurisdiction over the case in June and July 2023 on the ground that appellants had voluntarily dismissed the case on December 19, 2023. Respondents argue in response that appellants' attempt to voluntarily dismiss the case was defective and, thus, ineffective. Respondents are correct. A case may be voluntarily dismissed in three ways: "by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or of a motion for summary judgment, whichever first occurs," Minn. R. Civ. P. 41.01(a)(1); "by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the action," Minn. R. Civ. P. 41.01(a)(2); or by obtaining an order of the court, Minn. R. Civ. P. 41.01(b). Appellants did not attempt to invoke the second or third means of voluntary dismissal because they did not file a stipulation of all parties and did not obtain an order of the court. Appellants purported to invoke the first means of voluntary dismissal, but they did not do so "before service by the adverse party of an answer or of a motion for summary judgment." See Minn. R. Civ. P. 41.01(a)(1). The Foster defendants served their answer on appellants on May 12, 2022. The Ach defendants filed their answer on August 8, 2022, and appellants do not argue that the answer was not promptly served on them. Thus, appellants' December 19, 2022 notice of voluntary dismissal did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction.
15. Appellants' third argument is that the district court did not have jurisdiction over the case in June and July 2023 on the ground that respondents' sanctions motions were untimely. Specifically, appellants contend that respondents' sanctions motions were untimely because the district court granted respondents' motions to dismiss and entered judgment on April 18, 2023, before the sanctions motions were filed. Appellants have not cited any caselaw for the proposition that a sanctions motion may not be brought after a judgment on the merits, and we are unaware of any such caselaw. To the contrary, the supreme court has held (under prior versions of rule 11 and the applicable statute) that a district court retains jurisdiction to impose sanctions even after an appeal from the district court's judgment. Kellar v. Von Holtum, 605 N.W.2d 696, 700 (Minn. 2000); see also Vegemast v. DuBois, 498 N.W.2d 763, 764-66 (Minn.App. 1993) (holding that district court retained jurisdiction to impose sanctions under rule 11 after plaintiff filed notice of voluntary dismissal). Thus, the fact that respondents filed their sanctions motions after the district court's April 18, 2023 order and judgment did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction over the motions.
16. Appellants do not challenge the June 30, 2023, and July 11, 2023 orders and judgments on any other grounds.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The district court's June 30, 2023, and July 11, 2023 orders and judgments are affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Comments