Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A08-0312 Genna L. Christian f/k/a Genna L. Picard, Appellant, vs. Judith M. Birch, Respondent. Filed March 24, 2009 Reversed and remanded Larkin, Judge Concurring specially, Minge, Judge St. Louis County District Court File No. 69DU-CV-07-2772

Parrish J. Jones, Mitchell A. Routh, Knudson, Gee & Torvinen, S.C., 1507 Tower Avenue, 312 Board of Trade Building, Superior, WI 54880 (for appellant) Shari L. Lowden, Bakken, Robinson & Grove, Golden Hills Office Center, 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 220, Golden Valley, MN 55416 (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Minge, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Stauber, Judge. SYLLABUS 1. Because matters of procedure are governed by the law of the forum state, a choiceof-law analysis requires a determination of whether the conflicting laws are procedural or substantive. 2. Minnesota may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident, consistent with federal due process, when the subject lawsuit arises from, and is directly related to,

the nonresidents involvement in an automobile collision in a location where Minnesota has concurrent subject-matter jurisdiction. OPINION LARKIN, Judge Appellant challenges the district courts award of summary judgment, arguing that the district court erred in its determination that (1) Wisconsins statute of limitations governs the underlying lawsuit and bars appellants claims as untimely and (2) Minnesota lacks personal jurisdiction over respondent. Because Minnesotas statute of limitations governs the underlying lawsuit, and because Minnesota may exercise personal jurisdiction over respondent consistent with federal due process, we reverse and remand. FACTS For the purpose of the district courts summary judgment award, the relevant facts are undisputed. On January 9, 2004, a vehicle driven by respondent Judith M. Birch collided head-on with a vehicle driven by appellant Genna L. Christian. The collision occurred on the Blatnik Bridge, which spans the St. Louis River between Superior, Wisconsin and Duluth. Christian was driving toward Wisconsin; Birch was driving toward Minnesota, but in the Wisconsin-bound lane. Birch was intoxicated. According to Christians uncontroverted affidavit, "The accident occurred only feet from what is commonly referred to as the ,,arch or center of the bridge. Said accident was directly above the St. Louis [R]iver." Minnesota emergency vehicles responded to the collision scene and transported Christian to a medical facility in Minnesota, where she received medical care. Wisconsin 2

police officers also responded to the scene. The Wisconsin officers arrested Birch for driving while intoxicated. Criminal charges were subsequently filed against Birch in Wisconsin, and she pleaded guilty to a charge of causing injury by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle. Both Christian and Birch are Wisconsin residents. Christian had a passenger in her vehicle at the time of the collision. Christians passenger is a Minnesota resident. Birch does not own any property in Minnesota and is not employed in Minnesota. Christian sued Birch in Minnesota, asserting a negligence claim. Christian served Birch at her home in Wisconsin sometime after May 18, 2007. Birch moved to dismiss under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(a) (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted), (b) (lack of personal jurisdiction), and (f) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction). Because the parties submitted matters outside of the pleadings for the district courts consideration, the district court treated Birchs motion as one for summary judgment under Minn. R. Civ. P. 56. The district court concluded that Minnesota has subjectmatter jurisdiction, but determined that Wisconsins three-year statute of limitations barred Christians lawsuit and that Christian had therefore failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. The district court also concluded that Minnesota lacked personal jurisdiction over Birch. The district court granted summary judgment for Birch on both grounds. This appeal follows.

3

ISSUES I. Did the district court err in its choice-of-law analysis by failing to consider and determine whether the relevant conflicting laws were procedural or substantive? Did the district court err by concluding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over respondent? ANALYSIS On appeal from summary judgment, an appellate court determines (1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and (2) whether the district court erred in its application of the law. Olmanson v. LeSueur County, 693 N.W.2d 876, 879 (Minn. 2005). When summary judgment is granted based on application of the law to

II.

undisputed facts, as is the case here, the result is a legal conclusion that we review de novo. Lefto v. Hoggsbreath Enters., Inc., 581 N.W.2d 855, 856 (Minn. 1998). I. We first consider whether the district court erred by determining that Wisconsins statute of limitations governs Christians lawsuit. The district courts determination was based on a choice-of-law analysis. When a party asserts that a case brought in Minnesota may have a significant relationship to more than one state, the court must consider whether there is a choice-of-law issue. See William M. Richman & William L. Reynolds, Understanding Conflict of Laws

Download A08-312, Genna L. Christian f/k/a Genna L. Picard, Appellant, vs. Judith M. Birc

Minnesota Law