Motion-Secondary: Ryan Lazenby, Temaca Irrigation LLC vs Guadalupe Gomez, James Gomez, Temaca Lawn Sprinkler's, Inc., d.b.a. Temaca Lawn Sprinklers

On December 05, 2018 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Lazenby, Ryan, Temaca Irrigation Llc, and Gomez, Guadalupe, Gomez, James, Temaca Lawn Sprinklers, Temaca Lawn Sprinkler'S, Inc., for Employment in the District Court of Hennepin County.

Preview
27-CV-18-19659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/25/2019 11:29 AM

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: CONTRACT

Ryan Lazenby, and Court File No. 27-CV-18-19659
Temaca Irrigation LLC, (The Hon. Joseph Klein)
Plaintiffs,

VS. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
OF PLAINTIFFS’ PRETRIAL MOTION
IN LIMINE

Guadalupe Gomez, James Gomez
Temaca Lawn Sprinkler's, Inc. d.b.a.
Temaca Lawn Sprinklers,
Defendants.

Plaintiffs Ryan Lazenby and Temaca Irrigation LLC (“Plaintiffs”), submit this

Memorandum in support of their motions in limine. At issue is the status of the pleadings in this

case and Whether Defendants have any counterclaims they can introduce evidence in support of at

trial. Despite clear instructions from the Court, Defendants never took the steps necessary t0

properly assert any counterclaims. Nevertheless, Defendants have blithely continued t0 insist that

they should be allowed t0 argue issues not before Court, thus creating a procedural morass.

Defendants have n0 counterclaims to present at trial and are therefore limited t0 introducing

evidence that either rebuts Plaintiffs’ claims 0r supports a cognizable defense thereto.

I. Defendants Have Not Brought Anv Counterclaims Under the Rules.
Defendants’ only valid pleadings in this matter, ﬁled in December of 2018, lack any

independent counterclaim or request for relief. Their subsequent ﬁlings did not comply with the

Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure and must be disregarded. Under Minnesota Rule 0f Civil

Procedure 15.01, an answering party may amend its pleadings 20 days after service of the initial
27-CV-18-19659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/25/2019 11:29 AM

pleading. After the 20 day period expires, a pleading may only be amended by “leave 0fthe Court”

0r with “written consent of the adverse party.” Id. Additionally, the Court’s February 4, 2019

Scheduling Order required ﬁling 0f all Answers by February 14, 2019.

Plaintiffs’ served their Complaint upon Defendant Guadalupe Gomez on November 29,

2018. Plaintiffs have ﬁled no other pleadings in this matter.

On December 12, 2018, Defendants Guadalupe Gomez and Temaca Lawn Sprinklers, Inc.

servedl an Answer upon Plaintiffs. (Hansen Afﬁdavit Exhibit A.) This Answer contained n0 prayer

for relief 0r independent counterclaims. Defendant Guadalupe Gomez veriﬁed the December 12,

2019 Answer, but his counsel did not sign it. On or about December 3 1, 2018, Defendants

submitted another Answer. (Hansen Afﬁdavit Exhibit B.) This Answer was executed by counsel

as 0f December 12, 2018, and contained the same veriﬁcation as the December 12, 2018 Answer.

The December 31, 2018 Answer likewise did not contain any independent counterclaims 0r a

prayer for relief and appeared substantially similar t0 the December 12, 2018 Answer.

On March 20, 2019, Defendants ﬁled and served a “Supplement to Defendant’s Response

t0 Plaintiff” s Veriﬁed Complaint and Supplement t0 Defendant’s Veriﬁed Complaint” and a

“Response to Plaintiff s Request for Temporary Injunction, Answer to Plaintiff s Veriﬁed

Complaint and Defendant’s Motion for Temporary Relief and Defendant’s Veriﬁed Complaint.”

(Hansen Afﬁdavit Exhibits C and D.) Plaintiffs did not consent to the ﬁling of this purported

pleading or litigation of the issues therein and informed Defendants’ counsel 0f such prior t0 and

during a discovery phone conference with the Court. Defendants did not move the Court for leave

t0 amend its pleadings in connection with these ﬁlings. These ﬁlings contain purported

1
Based upon a review of the register of actions, it appears this document was never ﬁled.
Regardless, a pleading is effective upon service, not ﬁling. See Minn. R. CiV. P 4.01.

2
27-CV-18-19659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/25/2019 11:29 AM

counterclaims, but several of the counts therein would not have survived Summary Judgment or a

motion to dismiss.

On April 16, 2019, Defendants filed another document entitled “Defendant’s Amended

Verified Complaint.” (Hansen Affidavit Exhibit E.) Plaintiffs were never asked to consent to the

filing of these pleadings. Regardless, Plaintiffs’ April 24, 2019 Memorandum of Law explicitly

expressed their opposition to the claims in filings. Defendants did not request leave of the Court

to amend for this filing either.

The purported counterclaims in Defendants’ April 2019 filings could not have survived a

Summary Judgment motion. For example, Defendants alleged Plaintiffs converted Temaca Lawn

Sprinklers and the assets of the purchased business. It is well established law that when property

is held “lawful as a matter of contract right” there can be no conversion. Erickson v. Midland Nat.

Bank & Tr. Co. of Minneapolis, 285 N.W. 611, 612 (Minn. 1939). Plaintiffs hold the assets of the

business purchased from Defendants Guadalupe Gomez lawfully by virtue of the parties’ business

purchase agreement. There is no claim that the contract is void, and therefore Defendants’

conversion claim could not have withstood a Summary Judgment motion.

Likewise, Defendants claimed a breach of an employment agreement and damages of

$75,000.00. However, Defendants have not alleged anything more than an at-will employment

agreement, and therefore cannot recover damages. See Gunderson v. All. of Computer

Professionals, Inc., 628 N.W.2d 173, 181 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).

Finally, strewn throughout Defendants’ filings is the allegation that the parties’ relationship

is governed by an unsigned addendum drafted by Defendants’ accountant. This allegation

underlies several of Defendants’ purported claims, including those for breach of contract claim

and fraud. Defendants’ allegations completely ignore that any unsigned addendum is invalidated

3
27-CV-18-19659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/25/2019 11:29 AM

by the integration clause in the parties’ signed agreement. See Apple Valley Red—E-Mz'x, Inc. v.

Mills- Winﬁeld Eng'g Sales, Ina, 436 N.W.2d 121, 123 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). The claims related

t0 the unsigned addendum would therefore not survive Summary Judgment. Consequently,

Plaintiffs strenuously obj ected to Defendants’ untimely ﬁlings.

On May 1, 2019, Defendants brought a motion for temporary relief based on their April

16, 2019 ﬁlings. The Court reﬁlsed t0 hear the motion. The Court also informed Defendants”

counsel that she needed t0 bring a motion to amend her client’s pleadings in this matter and that

Plaintiff would be entitled to challenge any purported counterclaim Via a motion to dismiss or a

motion for Summary Judgment. The Court’s statements were a mere exposition 0f the procedure

for amending pleadings found in Rule 15 .01. Plaintiffs expected Defendants would either circulate

an Amended Complaint and Stipulation or serve a Motion to Amend. Neither of these events

occurred. In fact, Defendants took n0 action whatsoever t0 address the issues With their pleadings

after the May 1, 2019 hearing.

Defendants’ only valid pleadings are those ﬁled in December 0f 2018. Defendants’ are

bound t0 their December 31, 2018 Answer. Pursuant t0 Rule 15.01, any subsequently ﬁled

pleadings are invalid Without consent 0f the parties or leave 0f the Court. Neither of these were

obtained, and the March and April of 2019 purported pleadings should therefore be disregarded.

II. Defendants Cannot Introduce Evidence Supporting Non-Existent Counterclaims.

Defendants’ December 31, 2018 pleading contains no speciﬁc counterclaims or requests

for relief. Consequently, Defendants cannot assert any counterclaims at trial. They are limited to

opposing the claims in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Because Defendants cannot bring counterclaims,

any evidence 0r testimony related to claims other than those raised in Plaintiffs’ Complaint or any

legitimate defenses thereto is irrelevant and inadmissible at trial. Minn. R. EVid. 402. Defendants’
27-CV-18-19659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/25/2019 11:29 AM

invalid averments 0f fraud, unjust enrichment, defamation, conversion, and breach 0f contract

against Plaintiff are all outside the scope of what can be heard at trial.

Because Defendants’ counterclaims were never brought under the Rules, Plaintiffs’ motion

is properly characterized as a motion in limine rather than a motion to dismiss under Minnesota

Rule of Civil Procedure 12 or a Motion for Summary Judgment under Rule 56. The is because

Defendants’ purported counterclaims are invalid, and d0 not exist under the Rule of Civil

Procedure. See County ofDakota (C.P. 46-06) v. City ofLakeville, 559 N.W.2d 716, 721 (Minn.

Ct. App. 1997) (holding that an amended complaint brought 30 days after an answer without leave

0f the parties 0r the court was invalid). As Defendants’ claims d0 not exist, they cannot be

dismissed under a Rule 12 0r 56 standard. The matter is properly heard as a motion in limine t0

exclude evidence outside the scope of the legitimate pleadings.

Defendants chose t0 ignore the Rules 0f Civil Procedure and the Court’s Order on

amendment of pleadings. Defendants were warned that they needed to comply with the Rules

over ﬁve months ago at the May 1, 2019 hearing. Despite this, they took no action towards

amending the pleadings in this matter. Plaintiffs had a mechanism t0 add counterclaims under Rule

15.01. However, “[W]here a party fails to take advantage of this procedure, he is bound by the

pleadings unless the other issues are litigated by consent.” Roberge v. Cambridge Co-op.

Creamery C0., 67 N.W.2d 400, 403 (Minn. 1954). Plaintiffs have repeatedly and explicitly

withheld their consent from litigating the issues in Defendants’ post-December 2018 pleadings.

Defendants therefore are bound by the December 2018 pleadings in this case.

III. Conclusion.

Defendants d0 not have any valid counterclaims in this matter. The parties should therefore

proceed to trial based on Plaintiffs’ November of 2018 Complaint and Defendants’ December 31,
27-CV-1 8-1 9659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/25/2019 11:29 AM

2018 Answer. Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court issue an order in limine excluding

Defendants from introducing any evidence unrelated to Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendants’

defenses t0 those claims.

BURNS & HANSEN P.A.

Dated: October 25, 2019 /s/KirkA. Tisher
Erik F. Hansen (0303410)
Erik@burnshansen.com
Kirk A. Tisher (0397712)
kirk@burnshansen.com
8401 Wayzata Blvd, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN
55426
Telephone: (952) 564-6262
Facsimile: (952) 564-6263
Attorneysfor Plaintiffs

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT REQUIRED BY MINN. STAT. S 549.211
The undersigned hereby acknowledges that costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney

and witness fees may be awarded pursuant to Minn. Stat. §549.21 1, Subd. 2 to the party against

Whom the allegations in the pleading are asserted.

BURNS & HANSEN P.A.

Dated: October 25, 2019 /S/KirkA. Tisher
Erik F. Hansen (0303410)
Erik@burnshansen.com
Kirk A. Tisher (0397712)
kirk@bumshansen.com
8401 Wayzata Blvd, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN
55426
Telephone: (952) 564-6262
Facsimile: (952) 564-6263
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case Info

Judge

Klein, Joseph R. Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

October 25, 2019

Case Filing Date

December 05, 2018

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion-Secondary: Ryan Lazenby, Temaca Irrigation LLC vs Guadalupe Gomez, James Gomez, Temaca Lawn Sprinkler's, Inc., d.b.a. Temaca Lawn Sprinklers

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties