Branson v. Moser
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:16-cv-02802
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Branson v. Moser, Judge Wright denied defendants’ appeal as moot after counsel began representing all fifteen defendants.
The ruling affected the fifteen defendants and Terry Lee Branson by ending the defendants’ appeal of the magistrate judge’s January 30, 2019 order as moot; it did not decide the underlying amended complaint or the renewed motion to dismiss.
What happened
Terry Lee Branson sued fifteen Minnesota state employees, and the defendants asked the district court to review a magistrate judge’s order striking their motion to dismiss. The magistrate judge had found that defense counsel did not represent every defendant for every type of claim.
After that order, another attorney appeared for all fifteen defendants in both their official and individual capacities. The defendants then filed a renewed motion to dismiss and continued their appeal of the earlier order.
The court concluded that no live dispute remained because the defendants were now represented and had filed a new motion. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright therefore denied the appeal as moot without deciding whether the magistrate judge’s earlier order was legally correct.
The detailed version
- Branson v. Moser · No. 0:16-cv-02802
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Mar. 27, 2019
Background
Terry Lee Branson filed this action on August 19, 2016, and filed an amended complaint on December 26, 2018. The amended complaint named fifteen Minnesota state employees as defendants in both their official and individual capacities.
The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on January 7, 2019. Defense counsel, an Assistant Attorney General, stated that counsel represented all fifteen defendants in their official capacities but only ten defendants in their individual capacities. United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois determined that counsel could not represent all defendants in their official capacities while representing only some defendants in their individual capacities. On January 30, 2019, the magistrate judge struck the motion to dismiss and its supporting documents from the record without prejudice because the filing did not respond to all of Branson’s individual-capacity claims. The order required the defendants to answer or otherwise respond to all claims by February 20, 2019.
Events after the magistrate judge’s order
On February 7, 2019, the original defense counsel withdrew, and another Assistant Attorney General appeared for all defendants in both their official and individual capacities. The notice stated that Defendants Piper, Johnston, Vaineo, McEachran, and Becker had been certified for defense and indemnity under Minnesota Statutes § 3.763, subdivision 9, and waived service. The defendants later filed a renewed motion to dismiss and appealed the magistrate judge’s January 30 order.
Court’s analysis
The defendants argued that the magistrate judge’s order was legally wrong because the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office could not accept personal service for, or appear for, an individual-capacity defendant who had not been certified for defense and indemnity. The district court did not decide that issue.
Instead, the court explained that federal courts may not decide questions that no longer affect a live dispute. The five defendants who had not been certified when the magistrate judge issued the January 30 order had later become certified. The Attorney General’s Office then represented all fifteen defendants in both their official and individual capacities and filed a motion to dismiss for them. Because the circumstances had changed, the court concluded that deciding the appeal would not materially affect the case.
Disposition
The court ordered that the defendants’ appeal of the January 30, 2019 order, docket entry 75, was DENIED AS MOOT. The court did not rule on the merits of the defendants’ argument about representation, service, or the amended complaint.
Judge
The order was signed by United States District Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.