In the Matter of Midway Pro Bowl Relocation Benefits Claim.
of Appeals Office of Appellate Courts
Morphew, Morphew Law Office, P.L.L.C., Minneapolis,
Minnesota, for respondent Bowl-Rite, Inc.
G. Mikhail, LeVander, Gillen, & Miller, P.A., South Saint
Paul, Minnesota, for appellant City of Saint Paul.
secure judicial review of a decision in a contested case, an
aggrieved person must serve a petition for a writ of
certiorari on all parties to the contested case not more than
30 days after receiving the final agency decision, as
required by Minn. Stat. § 14.63 (2018), but this 30-day
deadline does not apply to the agency-service requirement in
Minn. Stat. § 14.64 (2018).
Bowl-Rite, Inc., d/b/a Midway Pro Bowl (Midway) had its lease
of a bowling alley prematurely terminated because of the
construction of Allianz Field in Saint Paul. Midway sought
relocation benefits under the Minnesota Uniform Relocation
Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 117.50-.56 (2018), but
appellant City of Saint Paul (City) denied the request. The
dispute proceeded to a contested-case hearing before an
administrative law judge at the Office of Administrative
Hearings. The administrative law judge denied Midway's
then sought review of this decision under the judicial review
procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act. Minn. Stat.
§§ 14.63-.69 (2018). Midway filed a petition for a
writ of certiorari with the court of appeals and served the
petition on the City within 30 days of receiving the
decision, as required by Minn. Stat. § 14.63. The City
moved the court of appeals to discharge the writ and dismiss
the appeal, alleging that Midway failed to serve the petition
on the agency, as required by Minn. Stat. § 14.64,
within the 30-day deadline set forth in section 14.63. The
court of appeals held that the 30-day deadline in section
14.63 does not apply to the requirements of Minn. Stat.
§ 14.64, and denied the motion to discharge the writ. We
affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
facts in this appeal are undisputed. Midway sought relocation
benefits under the Minnesota Uniform Relocation Act after
Midway's lease of a bowling alley was prematurely
terminated due to the construction of the Allianz Field
soccer stadium and related infrastructure. The City denied
Midway's claim for relocation benefits, arguing that a
private party, rather than the City, had acquired the
property. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
conducted a contested-case proceeding. See Minn.
Stat. § 117.52, subd. 4 (requiring a contested case
proceeding under the Administrative Procedure Act if the
denial of relocation benefits is challenged). In an order
issued on January 18, 2019, an administrative law judge
affirmed the City's denial of Midway's claim for
relocation benefits. The decision of the administrative law
judge was the final agency decision. See id.
February 7, 2019, Midway sought judicial review of the
decision under the Administrative Procedure Act by filing a
petition for a writ of certiorari with the court of appeals.
See Minn. Stat. § 14.63. The Clerk of the
Appellate Courts issued the writ of certiorari that same day.
As requested in the proposed writ, the writ issued by the
court of appeals was directed to the City. On February 9,
2019, Midway served both the petition for the writ of
certiorari and the issued writ on counsel for the City, by
certified mail, and served the issued writ on the OAH, by
February 25, 2019, the City moved to discharge the writ of
certiorari for lack of jurisdiction, claiming that Midway had
failed to comply with the judicial review procedures of the
Administrative Procedure Act. Specifically, the City argued
that (1) Midway failed to serve the petition for the writ of
certiorari on the OAH-the agency that issued the final
decision-within the 30-day period in section 14.63 and (2)
Midway improperly served the writ of certiorari on the City
rather than the OAH. Midway opposed the motion and, two days
later, on February 27, served the petition for the writ of
certiorari on the OAH by certified mail.
April 16, 2019, the court of appeals denied the City's
motion to discharge the writ of certiorari. In re Midway
Pro Bowl Relocation Benefits Claim, No. A19-0237, Order
(Minn.App. filed Apr. 16, 2019). The court of appeals held
that Midway had invoked the court's jurisdiction by
timely filing the petition for the writ of certiorari and
timely serving the petition on the City, in compliance with
section 14.63. Id. at 1. But the court of appeals
also concluded that Midway had "incorrectly directed the
writ of certiorari" to the City rather than to the
agency. The court of appeals ordered Midway to file "a
corrected proposed writ of certiorari" and, once the
Clerk of the Appellate Courts issued a new writ, to serve the
corrected writ on the OAH and the City. Id. at 2.
Because the court of appeals "determined that
publication of a special term opinion [would] be beneficial
to the ...