Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Karsjens v. Jesson

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

December 1, 2014

Kevin Scott Karsjens, David Leroy Gamble, Jr., Kevin John DeVillion, Peter Gerard Lonergan, James Matthew Noyer, Sr., James John Rud, James Allen Barber, Craig Allen Bolte, Dennis Richard Steiner, Kaine Joseph Braun, Christopher John Thuringer, Kenny S. Daywitt, Bradley Wayne Foster, Brian K. Hausfeld, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
Lucinda Jesson, Dennis Benson, Kevin Moser, Tom Lundquist, Nancy Johnston, Jannine Hé bert, and Ann Zimmerman, in their official capacities, Defendants

For Kevin Scott Karsjens, and all others similarly situated, Kevin John Devillion, and all others similarly situated, Peter Gerard Lonergan, and all others similarly situated, James Matthew Noyer, Sr., and all others similarly situated, James John Rud, and all others similarly situated, James Allen Barber, and all others similarly situated, Craig Allen Bolte, and all others similarly situated, Dennis Richard Steiner, and all others similarly situated, Kaine Joseph Braun, and all others similarly situated, Christopher John Thuringer, and all others similarly situated, Kenny S. Daywitt, and all others similarly situated, Bradley Wayne Foster, and all others similarly situated, David Leroy Gamble, Jr., and all others similarly situated, Brian K. Hausfeld, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs: Daniel E Gustafson, David A Goodwin, Karla M Gluek, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Mpls, MN, USA; Raina Borrelli, LEAD ATTORNEY, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

For Lucinda Jesson, in their individual and official capacities, Kevin Moser, in their individual and official capacities, Dennis Benson, in their individual and official capacities, Tom Lundquist, in their individual and official capacities, Ann Zimmerman, in their individual and official capacities, Nancy Johnston, in their individual and official capacities, Jannine Hebert, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants: Aaron Winter, Adam H Welle, Nathan A Brennaman, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Scott H Ikeda, Minnesota Attorney General's Office, St Paul, MN, USA.

For Aclu of Minnesota, Amicus: Eric S Janus, LEAD ATTORNEY, William Mitchell College of Law, St Paul, MN, USA; Teresa J Nelson, LEAD ATTORNEY, ACLU of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA.

For Thomas Evenstad, Amicus: Peter J Nickitas, LEAD ATTORNEY, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

For Hennepin County, Movant: John L Kirwin, LEAD ATTORNEY, Mpls, MN, USA.

ORDER

DONOVAN W. FRANK, United States District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants' objections (Doc. No. 650) to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes's October 28, 2014 Order (Doc. No. 636) granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint and For Dismissal of Damages Claims Without Prejudice (Doc. No. 622). Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendants' objections on November 19, 2014. (Doc. No. 659.)

The Court must modify or set aside any portion of the Magistrate Judge's order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); Local Rule 72.2(a). This is an " extremely deferential standard." Reko v. Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F.Supp.2d 1005, 1007 (D. Minn. 1999). " A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Chakales v. Commissioner, 79 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948)).

Defendants argue that the Magistrate Judge improperly granted Plaintiffs' motion. ( See Doc. No. 650.) In support of this argument, Defendants contend that: (1) the Magistrate Judge erred in allowing Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint because " the proposed amendment's late filing is unfairly prejudicial to Defendants, especially without a modified scheduling order" ( id . at 3); and (2) the Magistrate Judge erred in denying Defendants' request to condition granting the motion upon the dismissal of Plaintiffs' damages claims with prejudice because " Defendants have the right to have all claims related to the allegations decided now on the merits rather than through multiple wasteful future lawsuits" ( id . at 4).

Plaintiffs, on the other hand, argue that the Magistrate Judge properly granted their motion. ( See Doc. No. 659.) Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have not been unfairly prejudiced by the Magistrate Judge's ruling because Defendants were " well-aware of each claim and allegation in the [amended complaint] for years" and because the amended complaint merely adds specificity and clarification to Plaintiffs' existing constitutional claims. (Id. at 4.) In addition, Plaintiffs argue that the Magistrate Judge correctly denied Defendants' request to dismiss Plaintiffs' damages claims with prejudice because granting the request would unfairly prejudice absent class members and because " whether or not discovery in this litigation can be used in any future damages actions related to the same claims is a decision for the Court to make at a later time." (Id. at 5-6.)

The Court concludes that Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge's Order is either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, the Court overrules Defendants' objections and affirms Magistrate Judge Keyes's October 28, 2014 Order in all respects.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' objections (Doc. No. [650]) to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes's October 28, 2014 Order are OVERRULED.

2. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes's October 28, 2014 Order (Doc. No. [636]) is AFFIRMED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.