Bailey v. Metropolitan Council

Background

Jeffrey L. Bailey and Marlon E. Carter sued Metropolitan Council, First Transit, Inc., Tim Ogren, Patricia Vold, Don Johnson, Troy D. Gustafson, Teamsters Local 120, and Dean Vinge. They alleged claims related to their employment at the First Transit Metro Mobility Division of Roseville, Minnesota, and their membership in Teamsters Union Local 120. The plaintiffs represented themselves. All defendants had appeared except Don Johnson. The plaintiffs had attempted to serve Johnson at what they believed was his workplace, learned that he no longer worked there, and apparently made no further efforts to locate or serve him.

The order addressed seven motions filed by the plaintiffs: duplicate motions seeking more time to respond to defendants’ motions to dismiss; duplicate motions seeking a temporary restraining order against attorney Brian Hentosz; duplicate motions seeking permission to serve Johnson by publication; and a motion to amend the complaint.

Rulings

The court denied as moot the motions for an extension of response time. The plaintiffs had relied on an appellate procedural rule that did not govern this district-court case. The District of Minnesota’s local rules already gave a party 21 days to respond to a dispositive motion, including a motion to dismiss.

The court converted the motions for a temporary restraining order against Brian Hentosz into motions for preliminary injunctions because the defendants had received notice of the motions. A preliminary injunction is a court order sought before final judgment that requires a party to take or stop certain action. The court did not decide whether the plaintiffs were entitled to that relief. Instead, it set a briefing schedule: defendants’ responses were due August 13, 2019, the plaintiffs’ replies were due August 28, 2019, and the matter would then be considered on the written submissions without a hearing.

The court denied the motions to serve Don Johnson by publication. It identified several problems. The plaintiffs had not shown the lien or garnishment required under the Minnesota rule they relied on. They had not filed the required affidavit or shown that they mailed the summons to Johnson’s residence, or that they did not know his residence. They also had not made the diligent effort required before using publication; the record showed only one attempted workplace service, with no attempt to locate Johnson’s home address or contact him by telephone or email.

Because more than 90 days had passed since the complaint was filed, the court granted the plaintiffs 30 days to serve Johnson. The order also required them, within 30 days, to show cause in writing why their claims against Johnson should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the federal service rule. The court warned that it generally would not grant another extension without compelling circumstances.

The court denied without prejudice the motion to amend the complaint. The plaintiffs had not submitted either a copy of the proposed amended complaint or a version showing how it differed from the current complaint, as required by the district’s local rules. The ruling left open the possibility of another motion that complies with those requirements.

Effect of the Order

This order did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ underlying claims or defendants’ motions to dismiss. It resolved or managed procedural matters: response deadlines, preliminary-injunction briefing, service on Johnson, and the requirements for seeking amendment. The order was issued by Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung under a referral stating that the district judge had referred dispositive motions to him for reports and recommendations.