Opinion ID: 174536
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Conflict with the Minnesota State Building Code

Text: Appellants argue that the City's use of Code Compliance Certification violated the Minnesota State Building Code by requiring properties to satisfy current building code standards, thereby removing grandfathered protections under state law. Appellants have articulated this claim under the doctrine of preemption. See generally City of Morris v. Sax Invs., Inc., 749 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.2008) (holding that the Minnesota State Building Code expressly preempts a city's licensing ordinances for rental properties). We do not reach Appellants' preemption arguments because they are not before the Court. We have reviewed the latest amended complaints in these actions, which total 228 pages, and even the most liberal construction of the complaints does not indicate a preemption claim. Indeed, the amended complaints do not even allege that the City has violated state law, let alone state a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Appellants are] entitled to relief. Fed. R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). As such, Appellants' preemption arguments are inapposite to the causes of action before the Court. We note that Appellants may amend their complaint on remand, see City of Columbia, Mo. v. Paul N. Howard Co., 707 F.2d 338, 341 (8th Cir.1983) (An amendment can be proper after remand to the district court even if the claim was presented for the first time on appeal or had not been presented to the district court in a timely fashion.), and also that our partial affirmance of summary judgment in this case is without prejudice to any preemption claim that may be available in state court.