Court Opinion

ID: 9743310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:30:33.701672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:40.495066
License: Public Domain

GILBERT, Justice
(dissenting).
I agree with the majority’s statement on public policy in regard to the importance of petitions for an order for protection in cases of domestic abuse.' However, we should not use public policy reasoning to alter a purely statutory equitable remedy. I therefore dissent because the district court’s failure to hold the hearing within the 14-day time frame as required by Minn.Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 5(a) (2000) caused the petition to expire, and the court did not have jurisdiction to hold a hearing in the absence of a petition.
Under this provision of the Domestic Abuse Act, the district court is required to order a hearing no later than 14 days after receipt of a petition for an order for protection, or, if an ex parte order has been issued under subdivision 7, those time periods apply. Minn.Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 5(a). The ex parte order in this case was issued on December 28, 1999. Because the petitioner requested relief requiring a hearing, January 4, 2000 was the court’s deadline. However, a hearing was not held until January 21, 2000. In the interim, the ex parte order expired of its own right on January 6, 2000, and the record is absent of any request for an extension of that order. Because the court did not adhere to the requirements of the Act, the petitioner was left unprotected — perhaps unbeknownst to her even from the time her ex parte order expired on January 4, pursuant to the statutory 7-day time frame, until the time of her hearing on January 21. This is contrary to the Act’s purpose of providing relief to victims of domestic abuse, and it also highlights flaws in the Act and in the majority’s analysis.
*214Implicit in the majority’s analysis is an alteration of Minn.Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 5, originating from appellant’s “alternate interpretation that the time frames are directory,” and based on opposing constructions of this statute by petitioner and respondent. However, mere opposing constructions should not lead us to conclude a statute is ambiguous when it is not. The statute requires that “the court shall order a hearing which shall be held not later than 14 days * * The majority opinion substitutes the word “may” for “shall” and, as altered by the court, the statute would now read in effect: “the court shall order a hearing which [may] be held not later than 14 days * * The majority’s construction is contrary to the rules of statutory interpretation, which provide that when interpreting statutory language, “shall” is mandatory, not permissive. MinmStat. § 645.44, subd. 16 (2000). But the majority has determined that this precise language is ambiguous and that construing “shall” as mandatory rather than permissive achieves an absurd result. To support its position, the majority opines that strict adherence to the 14-day time limit would not satisfy the legislature’s “intent to simplify the process and provide greater protection to petitioners.” However, under the majority’s holding, a petitioner loses interim protection if the court holds the full hearing after an ex parte order has expired. It is this gap in protection and a delay in conducting a hearing that is contrary to the purpose of the Act.
Instead of creating a theory of continuing jurisdiction when the order itself did not provide for that and the petitioner did not ask for the extension, I would affirm the court of appeals and hold that when the district court fails to order a hearing held within the required time frame, the petition expires and the court does not have jurisdiction unless the petitioner asks the court to extend the timeframe or files another petition. Although this result places a burden on the petitioner to either ask for an extension or file a new petition when a previous one expires, the burden is slight and when compared to the alternative, which could result in a gap in protection. Requiring the petitioner to request an extension of the time deadlines or file a new petition resolves the potential gap problem and is consistent with the purpose and the clear and unambiguous language of the Act.
The courts are directed to give these hearings priority, but under the majority’s holding there is no real incentive for the court or parties to do so — other than the potential loss of protection if a hearing is not held before an order expires. Petitions for orders for protection have become a significant part of our judicial system. In fact, during the year 2000 alone, over 13,000 petitions were filed1 in Minnesota. The high volume of this time-consuming procedure created by the legislature obviously has a major impact on the judicial system because we only have 268 district court judges in the State of Minnesota. Although the legislature did not appropriate new funds to handle this huge new case influx, it did limit the terms of existence of these petitions, which this majority opinion now nullifies. Because of the high volume and the importance of a timely hearing, the district court, as well as the lawyers who agree to take these cases, must give these hearings priority on their calendars.
Contrary to what the majority states, the initial hearing date of January 6 was not delayed “primarily [as] a result of the court’s calendar,” but initially and solely *215because the referee accommodated a scheduling conflict of petitioner’s lawyer. The full calendar preventing a hearing on January 6 developed later, after the petitioner’s lawyer returned from attending to another matter,2 which matter was not of the same character and did not have priority over this hearing.3 Furthermore, the designated hearing date was missed without any effort by petitioner’s lawyer to request an extension of this order by the court. When a lawyer signs on to a case such as this, he should recognize that these matters have priority on the court’s calendar and on the lawyer’s calendar. These orders for protection are in the nature of an ex parte temporary restraining order, which are entitled to priority on the calendar pursuant to Rule 65.01.
Traditionally, a temporary restraining order has been treated as a common law equitable remedy available when there was an underlying civil case pending. See, e.g., Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc., 278 N.W.2d 81, 91-92 (Minn.1979). A civil action is commenced by filing and serving a summons and complaint and equitable relief could be part of the case. Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.01, 7.02 and 65.01-.04. The court thus had jurisdiction irrespective of the status of the temporary equitable relief. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.02(c). Contrary to that traditional setting, in this case, there is no underlying civil action and the statutorily created order for protection is the sole basis for the court’s jurisdiction. It is purely a statutory remedy created by the legislature with statutorily defined purposes, procedures, and time limits.4
The courts are evidently finding the time to routinely grant these ex parte orders. However, when they do so, they must be mindful of the statutory time frames and the requirement of setting aside all other matters “except older matters of the same character” on their calendars and on the lawyers’ calendars if necessary to ensure that there is a hearing within the required time frame. Then these orders would not expire by their own terms, but they could be properly extended by the court after a full hearing.
Granting of an order such as this has significant immediate collateral consequences in marital dissolution matters and in state and federal criminal cases.5 The legislature must have been mindful of this when they set short time deadlines within the statute for the continuation of these orders until a full hearing. However, in this case the majority acknowledges that the ex parte order expired, thus upholding the mandatory 7-day hearing requirement contained in Minn.Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 7(c) (2000). But, then, based solely on public policy rationale, the majority opinion voids the 14-day statutory time frame *216contained in Minn.Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 5. There is simply no continuing jurisdiction because no underlying cause of action has been served or filed and, pursuant to statute, the order lapsed and the ordered hearing date was passed over without being extended. The full hearing date was held beyond the statutorily mandated 14 days. We should not unilaterally void strict statutory time frames when the petitioner has not availed herself of procedures that would have allowed for an extension of this order and provided the corresponding continuing jurisdiction.

. http ://www. crimnet. state .mn.us/courts-tats.htm.

. Respondent's counsel then became ill on January 7 and the court granted another continuance, but there is nothing in the record to indicate why a hearing could not be held within the statutorily required 14 days.

. Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure 65.01 provides in part that "the motion for a temporary injunction shall be set down for hearing at the earliest practicable time and shall take precedence over all matters except older matters of the same character * * Similarly, Minn.Stat. § .518B.01, subd. 3 (2000) provides that "[ajctions under this section shall be given docket priorities by the court.”

. Minnesota Statutes § 518B.01, subd. 4 states: "There shall exist an action known as a petition for an order for protection in cases of domestic abuse.”

. E.g., Violence Against Women Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2262, 2265 (1994 & Supp.1999); Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement" Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. § 922(G)(8) (1994 & Supp.1999); Marital Dissolution Act, Minn. Stat. § 518.131 (1998).