In the Matter of Midway Pro Bowl Relocation Benefits Claim.
of Administrative Hearings File No. 65-6020-35112
Morphew, Morphew Law Office, PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota
(for relator Bowl-Rite, Inc.)
G. Mikhail, Elizabeth Brodeen-Kuo, Kennedy & Graven,
Chartered, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent City of St.
Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge;
Connolly, Judge; and Slieter, Judge.
judicial-review provisions of the Minnesota Administrative
Procedure Act (MAPA), Minn. Stat. §§ 14.63-.69
(2018), govern a certiorari appeal from an administrative law
judge's determination of the eligibility for or the
amount of relocation assistance that the acquiring authority
must provide under the Minnesota Uniform Relocation Act
(MURA), Minn. Stat. §§ 117.50-.56 (2018).
Because Minn. Stat. § 14.63 only requires that the
petition for the writ of certiorari be filed with the court
of appeals and served on all parties to the contested case
within the 30-day appeal period, relator's failure to
serve the petition and the issued writ of certiorari on the
agency within the appeal period does not deprive the court of
appeals of jurisdiction.
SPECIAL TERM OPINION
certiorari appeal, relator Bowl-Rite, Inc., d/b/a Midway Pro
Bowl, seeks review of a January 18, 2019 order issued by an
administrative law judge (ALJ) that affirmed the City of St.
Paul's denial of relator's claim for relocation
benefits under MURA. Relator's claim arose from the early
termination of relator's lease of a bowling alley due to
the construction of a soccer stadium and related
infrastructure in St. Paul.
city denied relator's claim for relocation benefits on
the ground that a private party, rather than the city,
acquired the property at issue. On March 7, 2018, the city
initiated a contested-case proceeding in the Minnesota Office
of Administrative Hearings (OAH). In a January 18, 2019
order, the ALJ granted the city's motion for summary
disposition and affirmed the city's denial of
relator's claim for relocation benefits.
February 7, 2019, relator filed with the clerk of the
appellate courts a petition for writ of certiorari, a
proposed writ, a statement of the case, and proof of service
of the petition for the writ of certiorari, and served the
other appeal documents on counsel for the city. The clerk of
the appellate courts issued the writ of certiorari that same
day. Relator served both the petition for the writ of
certiorari and the issued writ on counsel for the city by
certified mail on February 9, 2019. Relator served the issued
writ of certiorari on the OAH by first-class mail on February
city filed a motion to discharge the writ of certiorari on
the grounds that relator failed to timely serve the petition
for the writ on the OAH and the writ of certiorari was
directed improperly to the city rather than to the OAH.
Relator filed a response opposing the motion. On February 27,
2019, relator served the petition for the writ of certiorari
on the OAH by certified mail.
certiorari appeal, the appeal period and the acts required to
invoke appellate jurisdiction are governed by the applicable
statute. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 115.01. Certiorari in
Minnesota is not a common-law writ, but a statutory remedy,
and the statutory provisions are strictly ...