Larsen v. Isanti County
- John Tunheim
- 0:18-cv-02191
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Larsen v. Isanti County, Judge Tunheim granted Larsen’s motion, struck Leight’s late counterclaim, and denied her moot record-supplement motion.
Kaitlin Larsen’s motion succeeded: Taran Leight’s defamation counterclaim was stricken, while Larsen’s separate motion to supplement the record was denied as moot. The order did not resolve Larsen’s underlying claims.
What happened
In Larsen v. Isanti County, Kaitlin Larsen alleged that Taran Leight sexually mistreated her while she was an inmate at the Isanti County Jail. Leight filed an answer and defamation counterclaim 40 days late, without asking for more time or explaining the delay.
The court granted Larsen’s motion to dismiss Leight’s counterclaim and struck it from his answer. The court relied on the counterclaim’s untimeliness, Leight’s failure to explain or defend the delay, and evidence that Larsen’s report was substantially true. The court also denied Larsen’s motion to add criminal-case records to the court file as moot.
Judge John R. Tunheim issued the order on January 25, 2019. The order addressed only Leight’s counterclaim and Larsen’s request to supplement the record.
The detailed version
- Larsen v. Isanti County · No. 0:18-cv-02191
- John Tunheim
- Jan. 25, 2019
Background
Kaitlin M. Larsen sued Isanti County, Taran Leight, and Jacob Zigan in their individual and official capacities. Larsen alleged that Leight engaged in sexual misconduct against her while she was an inmate at the Isanti County Jail, including sexual conversations, conduct in her cell, and forcing her hand onto his genital area. She alleged that Leight told her to keep the conduct secret and threatened that she could lose her jail-trustee job if she reported it.
Leight was served with the summons and complaint on August 24, 2018. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(A), he had 21 days to respond, but he filed his answer on October 24, 2018—61 days after service and 40 days late. His answer included a counterclaim alleging that Larsen defamed him by telling a male corrections officer that he had sexually assaulted and harassed her. Leight alleged that the statement was false and that Larsen knew it was false. He did not ask the court for permission to file late, did not explain the delay, and did not respond to Larsen’s motion.
Motions and Analysis
Larsen moved to dismiss the counterclaim for failure to state a claim or, alternatively, to strike it as untimely. The court explained that district courts have discretion to strike untimely pleadings. It also noted that Rule 6(b) permits an extension after a deadline when the filer shows excusable neglect, but Leight made no such request and provided no explanation.
The court found that Leight’s 40-day delay, lack of explanation, failure to seek an extension, and failure to oppose the motion justified striking the counterclaim. The court also found that Larsen had presented a meritorious defense to the defamation claim. Under Minnesota law, truth is a complete defense to defamation, and substantially true statements are not actionable. Larsen submitted evidence that Leight had been criminally charged for sexual misconduct against her and had pleaded guilty to the charges. The court stated that Leight did not dispute this evidence and that it persuasively showed Larsen’s report was substantially true.
Rulings
Judge John R. Tunheim ordered three things:
- Larsen’s motion to dismiss Leight’s counterclaim was GRANTED.
- Leight’s counterclaim was STRICKEN from his answer.
- Larsen’s motion to supplement the record was DENIED as moot because the court could decide the motion to dismiss or strike without the additional evidence.
The opinion does not state that the underlying claims in Larsen’s lawsuit were resolved by this order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.