In re the Matter of: Olivia Jassah Cassell, petitioner, Respondent,
Gabriel B. Cassell, Appellant.
Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-FX-05-002034
Erbayne W. Jarvis, The Law Offices of Erbayne W. Jarvis, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota (for respondent)
Gabriel B. Cassell, Pottstown, Pennsylvania (pro se appellant)
Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Smith, Judge.
We affirm the district court's order designating appellant-father as a frivolous litigant because (1) the district court properly imposed preconditions on father's future motions, (2) the district court has subject-matter and personal jurisdiction in this matter, and (3) the district court properly denied father's motion for a temporary injunction.
Appellant-father Gabriel Cassell and respondent-mother Olivia Jassah Cassell were married in 1993 and divorced in 2003. The parties have one child together, L.A.C., who was born in 1998. These parties have been involved in litigation since 2005, including multiple appeals to this court. See Cassell v. Cassell, A10-1085, 2011 WL 781225, at *1 (Minn.App. Mar. 8, 2011), review denied (Minn. Apr. 19, 2011); Cassell v. Cassell, No. A07-1655, 2008 WL 2651425, at *1 (Minn.App. July 8, 2008), review denied (Minn. Sept. 23, 2008).
In September 2012, mother moved the district court to designate father as a frivolous litigant pursuant to Minnesota Rule of General Practice 9. See Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 9.01-.07 (addressing frivolous litigation). In father's counter-motion, he requested, in relevant part, that the district court find that mother's rule 9 motion was barred by res judicata and that the district court issue a temporary injunction on further enforcement of all orders until mother provided evidence that she resided in Ramsey County at the time the case was filed in 2005. At the rule 9 hearing, the district court highlighted that, in one of father's past appeals to this court, we held that mother's rule 9 motion was not barred by doctrines such as res judicata and that the district court had on numerous occasions addressed the issue of mother's residency as of the 2005 case filing.
In its order dated December 19, 2012, the district court limited father's ability to bring future motions, ordering father to either secure an attorney to serve and file motions or, if not represented by legal counsel, furnish a surety bond of $10, 000, or pay the court administrator $10, 000 to ensure that mother would be paid if the district court ordered father to pay her court costs. This appeal followed.
Father challenges the district court's (1) determination that father is a frivolous litigant and imposition of preconditions on future motions, (2) the district court's subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, and (3) the district ...