Opinion
A21-0524
01-07-2022
Minnesota State Patrol Supervisors Association, Respondent, v. John Harrington, et al., Appellants.
Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-CV-20-5420
Considered and decided by Slieter, Presiding Judge; Gaïtas, Judge; and Kirk, Judge. [*]ORDER OPINION
RANDALL SLIETER JUDGE.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellants John Harrington, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, and Jim Schowalter, the Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB), challenge the district court's issuance of a writ of mandamus directing appellants to comply with Minnesota's 2020 bonding bill by providing an 8.4% salary increase to all state patrol troopers, including lieutenants in the Minnesota State Patrol represented by respondent Minnesota State Patrol Supervisors Association. Because the legislature, by new law in 2021, specifically directed appellants to give state patrol 1 lieutenants an 8.4% salary increase and repealed the 2020 bonding bill that is the subject of this appeal, and because appellants increased lieutenant salaries by 8.4% as required, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
2. On October 21, 2020, Governor Tim Walz signed the 2020 bonding bill, which provided that "[t]he commissioner of public safety must increase the salary paid to state patrol troopers by 8.4 percent" effective October 22, 2020. 2020 Minn. Laws 5th Spec. Sess. ch. 3, art. 9, § 6, at 130. The term "patrol trooper" was not defined in the 2020 bonding bill though its definition is provided in Minn. Stat. § 299D.03, subd. 2(a) (2020): "[e]ach employee other than the chief supervisor, lieutenant colonel, majors, captains, corporals, and sergeants hereinafter designated shall be known as patrol troopers."
3. Appellants refused to provide the salary increase, reasoning that, due to a title classification change by the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations in 1983, lieutenants were not entitled to the salary increase because they are not patrol troopers despite the statutory definition.
The Minnesota Department of Employee Relations was the precursor to MMB. See 2008 Minn. Laws, ch. 204, § 42, at 518 (references to the commissioner or department of employee relations changed to commissioner or department of finance); see also 2009 Minn. Laws, ch. 101, art. 2, § 109, at 1726 (references to the commissioner of finance or the department of finance changed to the commissioner of management and budget or the department of management and budget).
4. On November 16, 2020, respondent filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking payment of the 8.4% salary increase provided in the 2020 bonding bill. Respondent argued that because the 2020 bonding bill provided that all state "patrol troopers" are to receive this salary increase, and because lieutenants are defined as state 2 "patrol troopers" pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 299D.03, subd. 2(a), they were therefore entitled to the salary increase.
5. The district court agreed with respondent and on April 12, 2021, issued an order determining that the plain language of Minn. Stat. § 299D.03, subd. 2(a) designates lieutenants as patrol troopers and issued the writ of mandamus compelling appellants to provide an 8.4% salary increase to the state patrol lieutenants.
6. On June 26, 2021, Governor Walz signed a new law granting an 8.4% salary increase for lieutenants and a separate 13.2% salary increase for "patrol troopers." The 2021 law specifically provides, in paragraph (a), a salary increase to "state patrol troopers in positions represented by the Minnesota Law Enforcement Association by 13.2 percent." Minn. Laws 2021, 1st Spec. Sess., ch. 5, art. 3, § 1, at 1159. In paragraph (b), the 2021 law provides a salary "increase by 8.4 percent" to lieutenants as "supervisors and managers . . . who supervise or manage employees described in paragraph (a)," i.e., state patrol troopers represented by the Minnesota Law Enforcement Association. Id. Neither party disputes the meaning of the 2021 law.
7. Critical to our mootness analysis, the salary increase became "effective retroactively from October 22, 2020," the same effective date as the salary increase in the 2020 bonding bill, the focus of the writ. Id. Because the 2021 law provides its own definition for lieutenants and "patrol troopers," it does not rely on the interpretation of Minn. Stat. § 299D.03, subd. 2(a) and, as a result, the lieutenants received an 8.4% salary increase. The 2021 law also repealed the 2020 bonding bill effective on June 27, 2021. Minn. Laws 2021, 1st Spec. Sess., ch. 5, art. 3, § 6, at 1160. 3
8. "If, pending an appeal, an event occurs which makes a decision on the merits unnecessary or an award of effective relief impossible, the appeal will be dismissed as moot." In re Inspection of Minn. Auto Specialties, Inc., 346 N.W.2d 657, 658 (Minn. 1984) (citations omitted). "Appellate courts consider only live controversies, and an appeal will be dismissed as moot when intervening events render a decision on the merits unnecessary or an award of effective relief impossible. But an appeal is not moot when a party could be afforded effective relief." Verhein v. Piper, 917 N.W.2d 96, 100 (Minn.App. 2018) (quotation and alteration omitted).
9. Neither party desires us to resolve this matter on mootness because either, as respondent argues, it is not moot or, as appellants argue, an exception to mootness exists.
10. Respondent argues, citing Verhein, that this case is not moot because they can be afforded the effective relief of "completely separate [salary] increases" provided by "[b]oth laws" from October 22, 2020, to June 27, 2021-the eight-month period the 2020 bonding bill was in effect. See id. ("[A]n appeal is not moot when a party could be afforded effective relief." (quotation omitted)). We disagree.
11. The 2021 law, which took effect on June 27, 2021, after the district court issued the writ on April 12, 2021, plainly provides an 8.4% salary increase for state patrol lieutenants retroactive from October 22, 2020, the same date the 2020 bonding bill took effect, and it repealed the 2020 bonding bill. Therefore, state patrol lieutenants received the 8.4% salary increase, the basis for their requested writ of mandamus, and can be afforded no additional effective relief. Thus, this matter has been mooted. 4
12. Appellants claim the existence of an exception to mootness doctrine which compels us to issue a decision on the merits "because the interpretation of [Minn. Stat. § 299D.03, subd. 2(a)] can impact other cases."
13. "The mootness doctrine is not a mechanical rule that is automatically invoked whenever the underlying dispute between the parties is settled or otherwise resolved." Dean v. City of Winona, 868 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 2015). Our caselaw recognizes two "discretionary exceptions" to the rule requiring dismissal of a "technically moot" appeal: (1) "when an issue is capable of repetition, yet will evade judicial review," and (2) when a case is "functionally justiciable" and of "statewide significance that should be decided immediately." Id. at 4-6; State v. Brooks, 604 N.W.2d 345, 347 (Minn. 2000); State v. Rud, 359 N.W.2d 573, 576 (Minn. 1984).
14. Appellants do not explain why or how the interpretation of Minn. Stat. § 299D.03, subd. 2(a), would have statewide significance and the record reveals none. As we have explained, the 2021 law provided the requested pay increase to the lieutenants, which is the focus of the issued writ now before us. This matter is moot.
15. Generally, when an issue becomes mooted, the appeal is dismissed. See Dean, 868 N.W.2d at 9 (appeal dismissed as moot); Peterson v. Humphrey, 381 N.W.2d 472, 475 (Minn.App. 1986) (same), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 11, 1986); N. States Power Co. v. City of Sunfish Lake, 659 N.W.2d 271, 275 (Minn.App. 2003) (same), rev. denied (Minn. June 25, 2003).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The appeal is dismissed. 5
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. 6
[*]Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.