Preview
26-CV-20-175
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
5/5/2021 10:27 AM
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF GRANT EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: Civil Other/Misc.
Erik A. Ahlgren, in his capacity as assignee in Court File No. 26-CV-20-175
the assignment for the benefit of creditors of
Ashby Farmers Co-Operative Elevator
Company,
STIPULATION AND JOINT
Plaintiff,
MOTION TO STAY PENDING
v. DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA’S
RESOLUTION OF MOTIONS FOR
Plumbers, Inc., SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN
RELATED FEDERAL ACTIONS
Defendants.
Plaintiff Erik A. Ahlgren, in his capacity as assignee in the assignment for the
benefit of creditors of Ashby Farmers Co-Operative Elevator Company and Defendant
Plumbers, Inc. (collectively, the “Parties”) stipulate and jointly move the Court for an
Order staying this action pending the District of Minnesota’s resolution of pending
motions for summary judgment in related federal actions. This Stipulation and Joint
Motion is made pursuant to Rules 1 and 16 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure
and the Court’s inherent authority to control its own docket. The basis for the Parties’
Stipulation and Joint Motion is set forth below.
The following cases are pending in federal court and involve substantially similar
factual and legal issues to those presented in this action:
Erik A. Ahlgren, in his capacity as assignee in the assignment for the benefit of
creditors of Ashby Farmers Co-Operative v. First National Bank of Omaha, Civil
No. 19-1647 (JRT/LIB);
13366309v1
26-CV-20-175
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
5/5/2021 10:27 AM
Erik A. Ahlgren, in his capacity as assignee in the assignment for the benefit of
creditors of Ashby Farmers Co-Operative v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., d/b/a
Chase Card Services, Civil No. 19-1576 (JRT/LIB);
Erik A. Ahlgren, in his capacity as assignee in the assignment for the benefit of
creditors of Ashby Farmers Co-Operative v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. and
Cabela’s Incorporated, Civil No. 19-1607 (JRT/LIB);
Erik A. Ahlgren, in his capacity as assignee in the assignment for the benefit of
creditors of Ashby Farmers Co-Operative v. Jay Link, et al, Civil No. 19-305
(JRT/LIB);
Erik A. Ahlgren, in his capacity as assignee in the assignment for the benefit of
creditors of Ashby Farmers Co-Operative v. Diederik Muller a/k/a Diekie Muller
and DM Safaris, a/k/a Diekie Muller Hunting Safaris, Civil No. 19-303
1
(JRT/LIB) ; and
Erik A. Ahlgren, in his capacity as assignee in the assignment for the benefit of
creditors of Ashby Farmers Co-Operative v. Sam Fejes and Fejes Guide Service,
Ltd., Civil No. 19-2385 (JRT/LIB).
In the federal cases, the Court consolidated the cases for pretrial purposes and
issued a joint scheduling order setting the following deadlines:
Discovery—March 8, 2021;
Nondispositive Motions—April 5, 2021;
Dispositive Motions—May 6, 2021;
Ready for Trial—August 5, 2021.
On February 22 and March 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed Motions for Summary Judgment in
the federal cases. On April 5, 2021, the federal court issued the following deadlines for summary
judgment briefing in the federal cases:
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment:
1
The six federal actions are collectively referred to as the “federal cases.”
2
13366309v1
26-CV-20-175
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
5/5/2021 10:27 AM
o Defendants’ omnibus response due on May 18, 2021
o Plaintiff’s reply due on June 1, 2021
Defendants’ Cross Motions for Summary Judgment:
o Defendants’ opening memoranda due on April 19, 2021
o Plaintiff’s responses due on May 10, 2021
o Defendants’ replies due on May 24, 2021
The parties in the federal cases have complied with federal court’s deadlines and
submitted summary judgment papers in accordance with the above-referenced deadlines.
The federal court has scheduled a hearing on the motions for June 15, 2021. The date
upon which the federal court will issue a ruling on the motions, however, is unknown.
To date, the parties in both the federal cases and the related state court cases have
coordinated discovery, including fact depositions and expert discovery. This coordination has
promoted efficiency, with significant savings of time and expense for all parties. Staying this
action until the District of Minnesota rules upon the summary judgment motions in the federal
cases will allow the Parties to obtain guidance on the same factual and legal issues that would be
presented to this Court on the Parties’ anticipated motions for summary judgment, which will
allow the Parties to reevaluate their legal and settlement positions and preserve the Parties’ and
the Court’s resources.2
2
See Minn. R. Civ. P. 1 (stating the Rules “shall be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of every action.”); Patterson v.Wu Fam. Corp., 608 N.W.2d 863, 867 (Minn. 2000)
(“The rules of procedure should be construed to discourage unnecessary litigation.”); In re the Claims for No-Fault
Benefits Against Progressive Ins. Co., 720 N.W.2d 865, 873 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006) (quotation omitted) (stating that
review of a districtcourt’s order on a motion to stay is reviewed for an abuse of discretion,but “[i]ndeciding
whether to defer to another court, a trialjudge must determine which action best serve the parties’need for a
comprehensive solution, consider judicial economy, cost and convenience to the litigants, and assess the possibility
of overlapping multiple determinations of the same dispute.”); Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Mitchell, 862
N.W.2d 67, 73 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015) (“District courts have discretion when deciding whether to grant a stay ….”);
Clinton v.Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (“The District Court has broad discretion tostay proceedings as an
incident to its power to control its own docket.”).
3
13366309v1
26-CV-20-175
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
5/5/2021 10:27 AM
For the reasons set forth above, the Parties stipulate and jointly move the Court to stay
this action pending the District of Minnesota’s ruling on the motions for summary judgment in
the federal cases.3
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: May 5, 2021 AHLGREN LAW OFFICE, PLLC
By: s/ Erik A. Ahlgren
Erik A. Ahlgren (#191814)
220 W Washington Ave. Ste. 105
Fergus Falls, MN 56537
Tel: 218-998-2775
Fax: 218-998-6404
Email: erik@ahlgrenlaw.net
ATTORNEYS FOR
ERIK A. AHLGREN, ASSIGNEE
Dated: May 5, 2021 TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER
LLP
By: s/ Adam G. Chandler
Jason R. Asmus (#319405)
Adam G. Chandler (#397408)
Mark G. Schroeder (#171530)
2200 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2157
(612) 977-8400
jasmus@taftlaw.com
achandler@taftlaw.com
mschroeder@taftlaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
3
A proposed order has been submitted for the Court’s consideration. Identical stipulations/joint motions are being
filed in the related state court actions.
4
13366309v1
Preview
26-CV-20-175 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/5/2021 10:27 AM STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF GRANT EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: Civil Other/Misc. Erik A. Ahlgren, in his capacity as assignee in Court File No. 26-CV-20-175 the assignment for the benefit of creditors of Ashby Farmers Co-Operative Elevator Company, STIPULATION AND JOINT Plaintiff, MOTION TO STAY PENDING v. DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA’S RESOLUTION OF MOTIONS FOR Plumbers, Inc., SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN RELATED FEDERAL ACTIONS Defendants. Plaintiff Erik A. Ahlgren, in his capacity as assignee in the assignment for the benefit of creditors of Ashby Farmers Co-Operative Elevator Company and Defendant Plumbers, Inc. (collectively, the “Parties”) stipulate and jointly move the Court for an Order staying this action pending the District of Minnesota’s resolution of pending motions for summary judgment in related federal actions. This Stipulation and Joint Motion is made pursuant to Rules 1 and 16 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s inherent authority to control its own docket. The basis for the Parties’ Stipulation and Joint Motion is set forth below. The following cases are pending in federal court and involve substantially similar factual and legal issues to those presented in this action: Erik A. Ahlgren, in his capacity as assignee in the assignment for the benefit of creditors of Ashby Farmers Co-Operative v. First National Bank of Omaha, Civil No. 19-1647 (JRT/LIB); 13366309v1 26-CV-20-175 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/5/2021 10:27 AM Erik A. Ahlgren, in his capacity as assignee in the assignment for the benefit of creditors of Ashby Farmers Co-Operative v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., d/b/a Chase Card Services, Civil No. 19-1576 (JRT/LIB); Erik A. Ahlgren, in his capacity as assignee in the assignment for the benefit of creditors of Ashby Farmers Co-Operative v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. and Cabela’s Incorporated, Civil No. 19-1607 (JRT/LIB); Erik A. Ahlgren, in his capacity as assignee in the assignment for the benefit of creditors of Ashby Farmers Co-Operative v. Jay Link, et al, Civil No. 19-305 (JRT/LIB); Erik A. Ahlgren, in his capacity as assignee in the assignment for the benefit of creditors of Ashby Farmers Co-Operative v. Diederik Muller a/k/a Diekie Muller and DM Safaris, a/k/a Diekie Muller Hunting Safaris, Civil No. 19-303 1 (JRT/LIB) ; and Erik A. Ahlgren, in his capacity as assignee in the assignment for the benefit of creditors of Ashby Farmers Co-Operative v. Sam Fejes and Fejes Guide Service, Ltd., Civil No. 19-2385 (JRT/LIB). In the federal cases, the Court consolidated the cases for pretrial purposes and issued a joint scheduling order setting the following deadlines: Discovery—March 8, 2021; Nondispositive Motions—April 5, 2021; Dispositive Motions—May 6, 2021; Ready for Trial—August 5, 2021. On February 22 and March 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed Motions for Summary Judgment in the federal cases. On April 5, 2021, the federal court issued the following deadlines for summary judgment briefing in the federal cases: Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment: 1 The six federal actions are collectively referred to as the “federal cases.” 2 13366309v1 26-CV-20-175 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/5/2021 10:27 AM o Defendants’ omnibus response due on May 18, 2021 o Plaintiff’s reply due on June 1, 2021 Defendants’ Cross Motions for Summary Judgment: o Defendants’ opening memoranda due on April 19, 2021 o Plaintiff’s responses due on May 10, 2021 o Defendants’ replies due on May 24, 2021 The parties in the federal cases have complied with federal court’s deadlines and submitted summary judgment papers in accordance with the above-referenced deadlines. The federal court has scheduled a hearing on the motions for June 15, 2021. The date upon which the federal court will issue a ruling on the motions, however, is unknown. To date, the parties in both the federal cases and the related state court cases have coordinated discovery, including fact depositions and expert discovery. This coordination has promoted efficiency, with significant savings of time and expense for all parties. Staying this action until the District of Minnesota rules upon the summary judgment motions in the federal cases will allow the Parties to obtain guidance on the same factual and legal issues that would be presented to this Court on the Parties’ anticipated motions for summary judgment, which will allow the Parties to reevaluate their legal and settlement positions and preserve the Parties’ and the Court’s resources.2 2 See Minn. R. Civ. P. 1 (stating the Rules “shall be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.”); Patterson v.Wu Fam. Corp., 608 N.W.2d 863, 867 (Minn. 2000) (“The rules of procedure should be construed to discourage unnecessary litigation.”); In re the Claims for No-Fault Benefits Against Progressive Ins. Co., 720 N.W.2d 865, 873 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006) (quotation omitted) (stating that review of a districtcourt’s order on a motion to stay is reviewed for an abuse of discretion,but “[i]ndeciding whether to defer to another court, a trialjudge must determine which action best serve the parties’need for a comprehensive solution, consider judicial economy, cost and convenience to the litigants, and assess the possibility of overlapping multiple determinations of the same dispute.”); Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Mitchell, 862 N.W.2d 67, 73 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015) (“District courts have discretion when deciding whether to grant a stay ….”); Clinton v.Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (“The District Court has broad discretion tostay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.”). 3 13366309v1 26-CV-20-175 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/5/2021 10:27 AM For the reasons set forth above, the Parties stipulate and jointly move the Court to stay this action pending the District of Minnesota’s ruling on the motions for summary judgment in the federal cases.3 Respectfully submitted, Dated: May 5, 2021 AHLGREN LAW OFFICE, PLLC By: s/ Erik A. Ahlgren Erik A. Ahlgren (#191814) 220 W Washington Ave. Ste. 105 Fergus Falls, MN 56537 Tel: 218-998-2775 Fax: 218-998-6404 Email: erik@ahlgrenlaw.net ATTORNEYS FOR ERIK A. AHLGREN, ASSIGNEE Dated: May 5, 2021 TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP By: s/ Adam G. Chandler Jason R. Asmus (#319405) Adam G. Chandler (#397408) Mark G. Schroeder (#171530) 2200 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2157 (612) 977-8400 jasmus@taftlaw.com achandler@taftlaw.com mschroeder@taftlaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 3 A proposed order has been submitted for the Court’s consideration. Identical stipulations/joint motions are being filed in the related state court actions. 4 13366309v1