Donovan W. Frank

This case involved a lawsuit by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association and a commercial truck driver against Minnesota State Patrol officers, alleging that a 2008 fatigue-related inspection of the driver violated the Fourth Amendment through an unreasonable seizure and that the agency's enforcement program lacked adequate limits on officer discretion. The court incorporated its prior findings that the specific detention exceeded reasonable bounds without articulable suspicion of impairment and that the 2008 program failed to constrain officers properly. It declared that the inspection violated the driver's rights, that the prior program was constitutionally deficient, and that updated General Orders on impairment checks, out-of-service criteria, and inspections are adequate if followed with proper training, while enjoining future violations and unauthorized changes to the new protocols. The reasoning centered on Fourth Amendment requirements for reasonable suspicion before expanding inspections, limits on questioning scope, and probable cause for out-of-service orders.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

Tarek Ibn Ziyad Academy (TiZA), a Minnesota public charter school sponsored since 2003 by Islamic Relief USA, filed suit seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent disruption of its operations after a 2009 amendment to the Minnesota Charter School Law rendered out-of-state nonprofit corporations ineligible to serve as charter school authorizers beginning July 1, 2011. The amendment followed a legislative audit recommending stronger oversight standards and changed the term “sponsor” to “authorizer” while imposing new eligibility and approval requirements. TiZA argued that the law unconstitutionally impaired its existing contract and raised religious-liberty concerns tied to a separate Establishment Clause action. The court denied both motions, holding that TiZA had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, had delayed nearly two years before challenging the amendment, and could not demonstrate irreparable harm justifying emergency relief. The court also denied an injunction pending appeal.

religious libertycivil rightsbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit by Novo Nordisk against Paddock Laboratories concerning U.S. Patent No. 6,677,358 for a combination drug with repaglinide and metformin, filed after Paddock submitted an ANDA for a generic version. In a related case against another company, a Michigan district court had ruled the patent invalid due to obviousness and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, and Novo Nordisk appealed that decision. Paddock moved for judgment on the pleadings based on collateral estoppel from the Michigan ruling, while Novo Nordisk sought to stay the proceedings pending the appeal. The court granted Paddock's motion in part, applying collateral estoppel to bar relitigation of the patent's validity and unenforceability because Novo Nordisk had a full and fair opportunity to litigate those issues, and denied the motion to stay.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involves Flirts, Inc. and its owners challenging a City of Harris ordinance regulating adult entertainment establishments such as the Heartbreaker’s nightclub, which features live nude and semi-nude dancing; the ordinance includes limits on hours, a high license fee, no-touch rules, direct tipping restrictions, and a total nudity ban. The court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment in full. It reasoned that fact issues remain on whether the City’s evidence adequately supports the ordinance as addressing adverse secondary effects of adult businesses, whether the license fee is justified by additional costs tied to the adult nature of the business, and whether the conduct restrictions are sufficiently related to those effects.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a trade association of truck drivers and one individual commercial driver suing officials from the Minnesota State Patrol over enforcement practices during roadside inspections of commercial vehicles under the federal Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program. The court addressed claims of constitutional violations arising from those inspections and related out-of-service orders. It decided to amend its prior order to dismiss all claims against supervisory defendants Colonel Mark Dunaski, Ken Urquhart, and Lieutenant Doug Thooft in their personal and official capacities. The core reasoning was that these defendants lacked any personal involvement in the specific May 2008 incident at issue, consistent with earlier summary judgment rulings, and that no departmental policy or custom was shown to connect them to the alleged violations.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves the ACLU of Minnesota suing Tarek Ibn Ziyad Academy (TiZA), a public charter school, along with its directors, sponsor Islamic Relief USA, and the state Commissioner of Education, alleging that TiZA used public tax funds to promote Islam in violation of the Establishment Clauses of the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions. The court addressed multiple motions for summary judgment, including TiZA's challenges to the ACLU's capacity to sue due to a corporate filing lapse and cross-claims by Islamic Relief and the Commissioner seeking indemnification from TiZA under their contracts. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, finding that the ACLU could proceed as an unincorporated association, dismissing claims for injunctive relief against individual defendants in their personal capacities, and upholding certain indemnification provisions while rejecting others based on contract language and factual circumstances. Core reasoning centered on Rule 56 standards for summary judgment, federal procedural rules on party capacity, and Minnesota contract law interpreting liability-shifting clauses without disparities in bargaining power.

religious libertycivil rightsprocedure

This case involves the ACLU of Minnesota suing Tarek Ibn Ziyad Academy and related defendants, alleging that the charter school's operations violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the Minnesota Constitution, and state charter school law. Non-parties affiliated with the Muslim American Society of Minnesota moved to disqualify the plaintiff's law firm, Dorsey & Whitney, claiming a prior attorney-client relationship with Zaman and related entities that created a conflict of interest. The court denied the disqualification motion, reasoning that disqualification is an extreme remedy required only when absolutely necessary, the evidence of any attorney-client relationship was slim, and no basis for disqualification existed even assuming such a relationship. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion for sanctions against the movants, despite finding their motion weak and delayed.

civil rightsreligious libertyprocedure

In Gangnon v. Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, the plaintiff sued the defendant hospital alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act for denying extended leave related to her pregnancy and the Minnesota Parental Leave Act for terminating her after an approved leave of absence. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The court reasoned that the plaintiff was ineligible for FMLA leave because she had not worked the required 1,250 hours in the prior twelve months. Regarding the MPLA claim, the court found no causal link between the protected leave and the termination, as the plaintiff's attendance issues and warnings predated the leave, she was explicitly notified that post-leave absences would count against her record, and the termination resulted from ongoing violations of the hospital's attendance policy rather than retaliation.

labor & employment

This case involved a challenge by the Saint Paul Branch of the NAACP and other community plaintiffs against the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, and Metropolitan Council, claiming that the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Central Corridor Light Rail Transit project violated the National Environmental Policy Act and Administrative Procedure Act by inadequately addressing impacts on minority and low-income communities in the Midway East area of St. Paul. Plaintiffs sought an injunction to halt further construction until a compliant EIS was prepared. The court granted in part and denied in part the cross-motions for summary judgment after examining the administrative record on the project's purpose, alternatives analysis, assessments of environmental effects, Title VI considerations, and historical community impacts such as those from prior I-94 construction.

environmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs Hockey Enterprises, Inc. and Mathieu Comeau suing Total Hockey Worldwide, LLC and related defendants over alleged misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the sale of a hockey-training franchise opportunity in Florida, including claims under the Minnesota Franchise Act as well as common-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The court considered multiple motions to dismiss filed by the defendants. It granted the motions in part and denied them in part, dismissing the Franchise Act claims based on a Florida choice-of-law provision but allowing the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims to proceed against most defendants on the grounds that the complaint sufficiently alleged actionable misstatements, omissions, and justifiable reliance. The court also addressed personal liability of individual defendants and rejected arguments that certain statements were mere opinions or non-actionable projections.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved environmental groups suing federal agencies including the State Department and Army Corps of Engineers over the approval of permits and the final environmental impact statement for the Alberta Clipper and Southern Lights Diluent oil pipelines running from Canada into the northern United States. Plaintiffs alleged violations of NEPA and the APA in the agencies' review process. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' and intervenor Enbridge's motions, upholding the permits and EIS. The core reasoning was that the EIS adequately considered cumulative impacts from other pipelines and projects within the existing right-of-way, evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives, and was not required to assess transboundary effects from Canadian tar sands development because those were not direct or indirect effects of the U.S. pipeline approvals.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

This case arose after the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, when Minnesota amended its laws to permit corporate independent expenditures but required organizations making such expenditures to form a separate political fund, appoint a treasurer, and comply with ongoing disclosure and organizational rules under statutes like Minn. Stat. § 10A.12 and § 211B.15. Nonprofit and for-profit plaintiffs challenged these provisions as unconstitutional burdens on First Amendment speech and association rights, seeking a preliminary injunction to block enforcement. The court denied the motion, concluding that the requirements were not outright bans on speech but instead disclosure and structural rules subject to exacting scrutiny, which the state could likely satisfy by showing they were substantially related to important interests in preventing corruption and informing voters. The court distinguished the Minnesota scheme from the federal ban struck down in Citizens United and found plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on their claims that the rules imposed PAC-like status or viewpoint discrimination.

electionsfree speech

The case involved Kevin Van Der Bosch's appeal under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Commissioner's final decision denying his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, which were based on claims including degenerative disc disease, depression, anxiety, and panic attacks. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's motion. The court reasoned that substantial evidence in the record supported the administrative conclusion that the plaintiff's alcoholism was material to his claimed disability and that his impairments, considered apart from alcohol use, did not render him disabled under the Medical-Vocational Guidelines or applicable regulations.

federal powerhealthcare

The case involved Guidant LLC pleading guilty to two misdemeanor violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for submitting a false report to the FDA about a modification to one implantable defibrillator model and failing to report a correction to another model. The court considered arguments from alleged victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act regarding restitution, the absence of restitution or probation in the proposed plea agreement, and the handling of fines and forfeiture funds. The court concluded it had authority to order restitution but determined there were no victims directly and proximately harmed by the charged conduct as admitted by Guidant. As a result, the court declined to accept the plea agreement as drafted.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

This case involved environmental groups suing the U.S. Department of State, Army Corps of Engineers, Forest Service, and Enbridge Energy over permits issued for the construction and operation of the Alberta Clipper oil pipeline from Canada to Wisconsin. Plaintiffs alleged that the agencies violated NEPA and the APA by relying on an inadequate Environmental Impact Statement and that the State Department's permit issuance was unconstitutional. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissing the Fifth and Sixth Claims for Relief with prejudice while denying dismissal of the First through Fourth Claims. The decision rested on findings regarding jurisdiction over the State Department's actions under the APA and NEPA, as well as whether plaintiffs had sufficiently pled claims against the Forest Service and Corps.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

In Lorence v. Astrue, plaintiff Alison Lorence sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her applications for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits, alleging disability from conditions including degenerative back changes, fibromyalgia, depression, chronic pain, sleep apnea, and chronic fatigue syndrome with a date last insured of December 31, 2004. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, reversing the Commissioner's decision, denying the defendant's motion, and remanding the case for an immediate award of benefits. The court found the ALJ had erred in reassessing treating physicians' opinions, addressing the plaintiff's mental impairment, evaluating her subjective complaints and credibility, and determining her residual functional capacity. The record showed multiple treating physicians opining disability during the relevant period, strong support for the credibility of her complaints, and vocational expert testimony that a person with her limitations could perform no work.

federal powerhealthcare

The case involved pharmacies, pharmacy associations, and Medicaid recipients challenging two reductions in Minnesota's Medicaid reimbursement rates for brand-name drugs: a one-percent cut from AWP minus 14 percent to AWP minus 15 percent enacted by state law effective July 1, 2009, and a four-percent cut stemming from a private publisher's settlement altering the AWP calculation effective September 26, 2009. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming the changes violated 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A) by failing to ensure payments consistent with efficiency, economy, quality of care, and sufficient provider participation. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings while denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, addressing issues including standing under the Supremacy Clause, the Secretary of Health and Human Services' approval of the plan amendment, and whether the resulting rates satisfied the federal statutory requirements.

healthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

In United States v. Prentice, the defendant faced federal criminal charges of assault resulting in serious bodily injury and child endangerment, alleged to have occurred on the Red Lake Indian Reservation. The defendant filed pretrial motions to suppress his statements to FBI agents, suppress other evidence, dismiss the indictment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and dismiss on grounds that the charges were duplicitous. The court denied all motions, concluding after a hearing that the interview was non-custodial and voluntary so Miranda warnings were not required, that federal jurisdiction existed under statutes governing crimes on Indian reservations, and that the indictment properly alleged the offenses without duplicity or other defects.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case involved environmental organizations challenging federal approvals for the Alberta Clipper Pipeline, a project to transport crude oil from Canada to Wisconsin, on grounds that the State Department, Army Corps of Engineers, and Forest Service violated NEPA by preparing an inadequate environmental impact statement and that the permitting process was unconstitutional. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to halt construction and operation of the pipeline. The court denied the motion, determining that plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their NEPA claims regarding the sufficiency of the final environmental impact statement's analysis of alternatives, cumulative impacts, and related issues. The decision focused on the administrative record and the agencies' compliance with procedural requirements under NEPA and the APA.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involved an employee, Jerry Smith, who sued his union, Local Union No. 110 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, in Minnesota conciliation court. Smith alleged that the union failed to adequately represent him and other members by mediating rather than arbitrating grievances against his employer over detrimental changes to medical and dental insurance coverage required by the collective bargaining agreement. The union removed the action to federal district court, contending that the claim arose under federal law as a breach of the duty of fair representation. The court denied Smith's motion to remand, holding that the fair representation claim was completely preempted by the National Labor Relations Act and thus presented a federal question supporting removal and jurisdiction over the entire action. The court then granted the union's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, but did so without prejudice.

labor & employmentprocedurefederal power