Legal Document

534 U.S. 533 Lance Raygor, et al., Appellants,vs.University of Minnesota, a Minnesota State University, Respondent. C1-99-1140 STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT APPEALS Filed January 11, 2000 Hennepin County District Court File No. EM97013937 SYLLABUS 1. The assertion an Eleventh Amendment defense does not vitiate or destroy federal district court's original jurisdiction over claims involving questions the mandatory, supplemental state law under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (1994). 2. Under 1367(d) (1994), limitations period for asserting Human Rights Act is tolled during pendency court action alleging similar and Age Discrimination in Employment (ADEA), even though was ultimately dismissed on grounds. 3. When defendant prejudiced when plaintiff's decision to file including both first legally sound, limitation may be equitably pending court. Howard Bolter, Borkon, Ramstead, Mariani & Letourneau, Ltd., 485 Northstar East, 608 Second Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 55402-1959 (for appellants) Andrew D. Parker, Matthew E. Johnson, Smith P.L.L.P., 808 Colwell Building, 123 North Third St., 55401 respondent) Considered decided by Randall, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Holtan, Judge.* Reversed Judge OPINION KLAPHAKE, 1 Appellants Raygor James Goodchild brought this against their employer, respondent University (University), age discrimination violation (MHRA), Minn. Stat. 363.01-.20 (1996). moved dismiss, arguing that MHRA's 45-day statute had lapsed (d) agreed granted University's motion. We reverse. FACTS 2 In August 1995, appellants filed separate charges with Department (MDHR) University. By letters dated July 17, 1996, MDHR notified they 45 days which civil suits See 363.14, subd. (1996) (person bring within after receipt notice commissioner has charge). 3 On 30, sued They each alleged one claim 1974 (ADEA) MHRA. Their actions were consolidated. 4 Nine months later, dismiss lack subject matter Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). argued lacked ADEA MHRA because bars citizens another state. motion appellants' without prejudice. 5 challenged Eighth Circuit Appeals. That appeal been stayed United States Supreme case issue whether barred Amendment. Kimel v. Florida Bd. Regents, 139 F.3d 1426 (11th Cir. 1998), cert. granted, 119 S. Ct. 901 (1999). 6 Twenty action, This several appeal. lifted stay, however, allow ISSUES 7 Did err concluding while pending? 8 abuse its discretion rejecting should tolled? ANALYSIS I. 9 Summary judgment appropriate where no genuine issues material fact exist either party entitled as law. 56.03. examines documents evidence addition pleadings, 12.02 becomes summary judgment. 12.03. Issues application statutes require statutory interpretation, question reviews de novo. Boubelik Liberty Bank, 553 N.W.2d 393, 402 (Minn. 1996). 10 involves interpretation "Supplemental Jurisdiction" statute, provides pertinent part: 11 (a) Except provided subsections (b) [which discusses diversity jurisdiction] (c) allows decline exercise certain circumstances, such raises novel all have dismissed] * *, any courts jurisdiction, shall other are so related form part same controversy Article III Constitution. *. 12 13 asserted subsection 30 it unless longer tolling period. 14 15 It undisputed claim, raised question. 1331 (1994) ("district arising Constitution, laws, treaties States"). addition, gravamen based age. Thus, "so [the claims] form[ed] controversy" 1367(a). 16 Nevertheless, concluded 1367(d). reasoned these grounds, never "original" them. here divested original, attached. 17 described "bar[] suit between unconsenting citizens." Humenansky Regents Univ. Minn., 152 822, 823-24 (8th 1998) (ADEA Amendment). Amendment, typical jurisdictional can waived raise sua sponte. Parella Retirement Rhode Island Employees' Sys., 173 46, 55 (1st 1999). Although immunity defense, necessarily underlying jurisdiction: 18 [B]ecause waived, presence threaten power declare If case, sponte consideration possible bar would obligatory, discretionary but now clearly stated free ignore concerns if chooses press 19 Id. at 55-56 (citing Wisconsin Dep't Corrections Schacht, 118 2047, 2052-53 (1998)). 20 considered removal destroyed removed bar. 2051. Similar here, requires "original jurisdiction." 1441(a). place particular beyond decide, previously existing jurisdiction. Id., 2052-53. further recognized distinction automatically diverse, successfully asserted. Schacht supports position until entity. 21 argues toll reasons enumerated 1367(c) (federal "decline" complex jurisdiction). required did claim. 22 argument partially correct: See, e.g., Mayer 940 F. Supp. 1474, 1476 (D. 1996) (Eleventh MHRA, states officials) Pennhurst Sch. Hosp. Halderman, 465 89, 104 900 (1984)). also 23 A close reading 1367, establishes provisions apply "any" (a), Subsection reason order tolled. Rather, expressly states: 24 voluntarily time dismissal 25 plain language court, grounds (c). 26 Finally, oral arguments before counsel repeatedly represented "state court" "federal claims," citing Court's Pennhurst. "pendent" once raised, "examine see Amendment." Pennhurst, 121, 919. At point, discuss "subject jurisdiction" hold destroys vitiates claims. 27 Moreover, 1984, prior 1990 enactment codified doctrines "ancillary" name "supplemental" David Siegel, Practice Commentary, "The Adoption Codifying `Supplemental' Jurisdiction," reprinted U.S.C.A. 829 (West 1993). remains good law, must read conjunction recent cases discussing Schacht. therefore conclude erred granting 1367(d), governing action. II. 29 alternatively argue facts case. filing requirement 363.14 equitable tolling. Ochs Streater, Inc., 568 858, 860 App. 1997). Factors consider include prejudice conduct plaintiff. burden prove Bartlett Miller Schroeder Muns, 355 435, 441 1984). There little new discovery undertaken used here. Perhaps more importantly, could consent thus allowing court; rather, waited nine defense. Any partly caused own actions. 31 With respect conduct, clarity clear precedent involved justifies Capital Tracing, Inc. States, 63 859, 862 (9th 1995). cannot fault failing simultaneously identical lawsuits courts. unclear from Indeed, circuits split issue, since lawsuit, taken minority held available Humenansky, 825 n.2 (noting Circuit's disagreement circuits). abeyance issue. Kimel, 1426. reasonable interpret Given area, only sound attorney's incorrect Cf. Ochs, (equitable choice remedies law). 32 relief DECISION 33 reverse grant 34 Reversed. Notes: Retired judge serving Appeals appointment pursuant Const. art. VI, 10.

Classification Label: 8