Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A09-1979 Rick Anderson, et al., Respondents, vs. County of Lyon, et al., Appellants. Filed June 22, 2010 Affirmed in part and reversed in part Wright, Judge Lyon County District Court File No. 42-CV-09-698 Gregg M. Corwin, Margaret A. Luger-Nikolai, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (for respondents) Ann R.M. Goering, Christian R. Shafer, Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellants) Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge; Minge, Judge; and Wright, Judge. SYLLABUS A district courts broad subject-matter jurisdiction includes the power to determine in a declaratory-judgment action a contract claim asserted against an administrative agency, unless the claim implicates a quasi-judicial decision of the administrative agency.

OPINION WRIGHT, Judge Appellants challenge the district courts denial of their motion to dismiss, arguing that the district court (1) lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over respondents claims because the claims implicate a quasi-judicial decision that is reviewable only by writ of certiorari, and (2) erred by failing to dismiss certain respondents who lack standing. We affirm in part and reverse in part. FACTS On February 3, 2009, appellant Lyon County Board of Commissioners (board) voted to modify the retiree health-insurance benefits for employees of appellant Lyon County (county) who were not yet retired. The boards decision was made after

receiving the comments of several county employees who opposed any modification and after holding an open forum on the issue during which modification proposals were considered. Respondents, a group of county employees, subsequently filed suit in district court, seeking a declaratory judgment that they are entitled to the health-insurance benefits set forth in previous employee policy manuals. Respondents also asserted

breach-of-contract and promissory-estoppel claims against appellants, based on the modification of health-insurance benefits from those set forth in the employee policy manuals. Appellants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the boards decision modifying healthinsurance benefits was quasi-judicial and, therefore, reviewable only by writ of certiorari. 2

Appellants also argued that four of the employees lacked standing to sue. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, reasoning that the boards decision was not quasijudicial and subject only to certiorari review.1 This appeal followed. ISSUES I. Did the district court err by holding that subject-matter jurisdiction exists in

district court? II. Did the district court err by declining to dismiss certain employees from the action

for lack of standing? ANALYSIS I. "Subject-matter jurisdiction is defined as not only authority to hear and determine a particular class of actions, but authority to hear and determine the particular questions the court assumes to decide." Irwin v. Goodno, 686 N.W.2d 878, 880 (Minn. App. 2004) (quotation omitted). Whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists presents a question of law, which we review de novo. Tischer v. Hous. & Redev. Auth., 693 N.W.2d 426, 428 (Minn. 2005). A district court is a court of general jurisdiction that has, with limited exceptions, the power to hear all types of civil cases. Irwin, 686 N.W.2d at 880 (citing Minn. Const. art. VI,

Download A09-1979, Rick Anderson, et al., Respondents, vs. County of Lyon, et al., Appell

Minnesota Law