Takuanyi v. City of South St. Paul Police Department

Background

Patrick Takuanyi brought federal civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985, along with a negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim, against the City of South St. Paul Police Department. He alleged that South St. Paul code and law-enforcement personnel ticketed and towed several vehicles owned by him or his business, repeatedly inspected his property, and were connected to other incidents, including a racial epithet allegedly written on one ticket.

After attorney David Wilson appeared for Takuanyi, the parties reported that they had reached a settlement. Their attorneys filed a stipulation dismissing all claims with prejudice, and the court dismissed the case with prejudice on June 30, 2021. Takuanyi later moved to reopen the case, asserting that Wilson settled without his consent. The Eighth Circuit sent the matter back for an evidentiary hearing on whether Wilson had authority to settle and dismiss the case.

The court held that hearing on August 29, 2022. Takuanyi also filed a motion concerning alleged destruction or withholding of his case file. He asked the court either to draw an adverse inference against the police department or to require Wilson to pay him $150,000.

Motion to Reopen

The court explained that a party challenging an attorney’s settlement authority bears a heavy burden and must provide competent evidence showing that the attorney lacked authority. The court applied the more demanding standard concerning express authority, which can arise from a client’s words or conduct that reasonably tells the attorney to act for the client.

Wilson testified that Takuanyi authorized him to make settlement demands of $15,000 and then $2,000, and that Takuanyi accepted the department’s final $1,000 offer on June 18, 2021. Wilson also testified that he later prepared settlement documents, discussed them with Takuanyi, and communicated the settlement to opposing counsel. The department’s attorney, Evan Tsai, corroborated portions of Wilson’s testimony.

The court found Wilson’s testimony generally credible because it was consistent with the record, particularly Wilson’s July 1, 2021 letter to Takuanyi. The court found Takuanyi’s testimony that he never authorized the settlement not credible, citing memory problems, a lack of detail, and inconsistencies within his testimony and between his testimony and the record. The court concluded that Takuanyi had authorized Wilson to agree to the $1,000 settlement and had not tried to withdraw that authority until after the settlement had been communicated and the dismissal stipulation had been filed.

The court therefore declined to vacate the dismissal with prejudice and DENIED Takuanyi’s Motion to Reopen.

Spoliation Motion

Spoliation is the destruction of potentially useful evidence. An adverse inference is a decision to treat missing evidence as unfavorable to the party allegedly responsible for its loss. The court said such a sanction generally requires proof that evidence was destroyed, was discoverable, and that its destruction prejudiced the moving party; intentional destruction to suppress the truth is also required.

The court found that Wilson was not an adverse party because he had been Takuanyi’s attorney, not the police department’s attorney. It also found no competent evidence that Wilson and Tsai were colluding when the file allegedly disappeared or were later colluding against Takuanyi. In addition, Wilson provided evidence that he sent the file to Takuanyi and that it was delivered to Takuanyi’s residence on June 21, 2021. The court concluded that, even if the file was lost, there was no evidence Wilson destroyed it.

Judge John R. Tunheim therefore DENIED Takuanyi’s Motion for Spoliation of Evidence. The court’s order left both the prior dismissal with prejudice and the denial of the requested evidentiary inference in place.