Opinion
A21-0464
10-27-2021
In re the Matter of: Virginia M. Carlson, Appellant, v. Commissioner of MN Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape Architecture, Respondent, Bryan Crane, Respondent, Karen Crane, Respondent.
Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-CV-19-7100
Considered and decided by Florey, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Reyes, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Francis J. Connolly, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In 1999, respondent Minnesota Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape Architecture, Geoscience, Interior Design (MBA) issued an order that appellant Virginia Carlson cease and desist from the practice of architecture and from holding herself out as an architect.
2. In 2012, appellant, as a principal of Architektur, Inc., claimed to be a licensed architect and signed a contract with respondents Bryan and Karen Crane (the Cranes) to design and build them a home, for which they paid her $10,000.
3. In 2013, the Cranes, after learning that appellant had no architecture license and had been charged with felony theft by swindle in an unrelated matter, terminated their contract. She sued them for unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and mechanic's lien foreclosure; they counterclaimed for fraud and breach of contract and moved for summary judgment.
4. In 2015, the district court granted the Cranes' motion for summary judgment.
5. Litigation in this matter has been extensive. See, e.g., Carlson v. DLI, No. A19-1485, 2020 WL 3410483 (Minn.App. June 22, 2020) (affirming dismissal of Carlson's claims against the Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) on grounds of res judicata and failure to state a claim, and dismissing their motions based on those claims as moot), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 15, 2020); Carlson v. State, Nos. A19-1004, A19-1443 (order op) (Minn.App. April 13, 2020) (denying and dismissing appellant's postconviction appeals and petitions); In re Carlson, No A18-1649, 2019 WL 4745369 (Minn.App. Sept. 30, 2019) (affirming summary disposition of MBA's administrative proceeding because collateral estoppel barred appellant from relitigating whether she had held herself out as a licensed architect and assessing a $10,000 civil penalty), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 17, 2019); Carlson v. Crane, No. A18-1666 (Minn.App. July 1, 2019) (order op.) (affirming district court's dismissal of appellant's complaint against the Cranes alleging fraud, breach of contract, perjury, and theft based on res judicata and failure to state a claim for fraud), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 15, 2019); In re Architektur, No. A15-1840, 2016 WL 4723380 (Minn.App. Sept. 12, 2016) (affirming DLI's order that appellants and Architektur pay a civil penalty and cease representing themselves as residential building contractors) (Minn.App. Sept. 12, 2016), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 23, 2016); State v. Carlson, A15-1219, 2016 WL 3961792 (Minn.App. July 25, 2016) (affirming appellant's 2015 conviction of felony theft by swindle in regard to the 2012 contract with the Cranes), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 26, 2016).
Philip Carlson joined appellant as a party in some of the litigation.
6. MBA moved to have appellant declared a frivolous litigant. The district court granted the motion in an order that denied appellant's motion to strike MBA's motion; provided that, in civil actions, the district court would not accept further filings from appellant unless she had either consulted with a licensed Minnesota attorney or the chief judge had granted her written permission for the filing; and lifted the stay on appellant's motions for summary judgment and for default judgment, on the Cranes' motion to dismiss, and on MBA's motion to dismiss.
7. A frivolous litigant is:
(1) [a] person who . . . repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate either (i) the validity of [a] determination . . . or (ii) [a] cause of action, claim, [or] controversy of any of the issues of fact or law; . . . or
(2) [a] person who . . . repeatedly serves or files frivolous motions, pleadings, or other documents, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in oral or written tactics that are frivolous or intended to cause delay; or
(3) [a] person who institutes and maintains a claim that is not well grounded in fact and warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or that is interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigating the claim.Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 9.06 (b).
8. District court determinations that a party is a frivolous litigant are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Szarzynski v. Szarzynski, 732 N.W.2d 285, 295 (Minn.App. 2007). "Upon the motion of any party or on its own initiative and after notice and hearing the court may . . . enter an order . . . imposing precondictions on a frivolous litigant's service or filing of any new claims, motions, or requests." Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 9.01.
9. The district court considered the seven factors set out in Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 9.02(b) to determine whether appellant was a frivolous litigant.
10. Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 9.02(b)(1) is the frequency and number of claims pursued with an adverse result. The district court concluded that appellant had brought four actions against the Cranes seeking "to relitigate adverse decisions . . . both civil and criminal"; had "filed a multitude of voluminous motions, correspondences, and pleadings in each of these four cases"; and had "propounded extensive discovery on opposing parties in this action and others"; in each case, the result had been adverse to appellant.
11. Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 9.02(b)(2) is the reasonable probability that a party will prevail on the claim. The district court concluded that all five of appellant's current claims had previously been raised and rejected and are likely to be precluded by collateral estoppel or res judicata, leaving no reasonable probability that appellant will prevail.
12. Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 9.02(b)(3) is whether the claim or motion was made in bad faith. The district court found indicia of bad faith in the fact that appellant's four suits against the Cranes represented a significant disregard for their rights and interests and in the absence of any reasonable basis for the continuous relitigation.
13. Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 9.02(b)(4) is the injury to other litigants and to the efficient administration of justice. The district court observed that, although appellant was convicted of felony theft by swindle from the Cranes, they have spent over $60,000 defending themselves against her in four separate actions; appellant had also sued DLI twice and brought both an administrative appeal and a separate civil action against MBA.
14. Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 9.02(b)(5) is the effectiveness of prior sanctions in deterring the frivolous litigant. There have been no prior sanctions. The two previous motions to have appellant declared a frivolous litigant have failed: the Cranes' motion was dismissed for procedural reasons and as moot, and MBA's motion was denied on the ground that appellant was making "a rigorous attempt to prove [her] innocence." The district court noted that a litigant repeatedly bringing civil actions against the same parties related to the same facts and occurrences is granted far less leeway than a criminal defendant.
15. Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 9.02(b)(6) is the likelihood that requiring security or imposing sanctions will ensure adequate safeguards. The district court concluded that, because appellant continues to file submissions in cases where her in forma pauperis applications have been denied, requiring a security is unlikely to deter her from further frivolous filings.
16. Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 9.02(b)(7) is whether a less severe sanction than the preconditions would be adequate protection for other litigants, the public, or the courts. The district court found that appellant is unlikely to voluntarily stop filing frivolous lawsuits against the Cranes with a less severe sanction.
17. Other than making unsupported claims that her opponents in the various actions have lied, appellant does not refute the district court's analysis of these factors.
18. Appellant argues that the sanctions are not legal because they apply to future cases and Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 9 does not authorize the court to set limitations over future civil actions. But see Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 9.02 (c) (authorizing orders "imposing preconditions on serving or filing new claims, motions, or requests"). This argument fails.
19. Appellant also argues that the district court abused its discretion in declaring her a frivolous litigant and imposing preconditions on her filings because "there is no record of [her] receiving the November 28, 2019 proposed [m]otion" that MBA sent her. But appellant stated in the memorandum supporting her motion to dismiss MBA's motion that "[on] November 27, 2019[, MBA] mailed its . . . motion to declare [her] a frivolous litigant with imposition of sanctions . . ." thus, appellant agrees that the motion was sent, and rule 9 does not require a moving party to provide proof that the proposed motion was received by the party accused.
Appellant also argues that the attorney for MBA also acted as the attorney for the Cranes. She does not explain what relevance the argument has to this appeal, and we do not address it.
20. Declaring appellant to be a frivolous litigant and requiring that she be supervised by an attorney before filing claims in the future was not an abuse of discretion.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.