Begin v. Miller, Court File No. 27-CV-09-11609, Fourth Judicial District, Hennepin County, Judge Burke (Jury trial March 2010). Plaintiff sued Deborah’s client, Brian Miller, for negligence and causing an automobile accident. Plaintiff alleged he had to undergo a decompression and fusion at L4-5 and left knee arthroscopic surgery as a result of the accident. Plaintiff requested that the jury award over $700,000. The jury awarded $52,000, which was less than Mr. Miller’s Offer of Settlement of $75,000.

In the Appeal of Nina Vang of the Determination of Maltreatment and Disqualification, January 25, 2010, Docket No. 111769, Human Services Judge Grove presiding. Hennepin County Human Services determined Ms. Vang had maltreated a minor and was disqualified from serving individuals in her program. After the hearing, Judge Grove held and the Commissioner affirmed: “[T]he County has not established neglect by a preponderance of the evidence [and] the County’s maltreatment determination should be reversed.” Because the disqualification rested entirely on the neglect determination, the disqualification was reversed, as well.

Elizabeth R. Johnson v. Northland Learning Center-Independent School District #6076, Court File No. 69VI-CV-06-237, Sixth Judicial District, St. Louis County, Judge Starr, January 20, 2010. In this case under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, the jury awarded $82,800 in compensatory damages. The court awarded $99,466 in attorneys fees, costs, disbursements and pre-judgment interest. The total award to Ms. Johnson was $182,266.

Matthew R. Ring and Mary J. Ring v. Wade Young, Sabrina Young, and BXI Minnesota, Court File No. 82-CV-08-1563, Tenth Judicial District, Washington County, Judge Elizabeth H. Martin (Jury trial 2009). This case arose out of the sale of a barter exchange franchise. Plaintiffs sued Deborah's clients for breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and violation of the Minnesota Franchise Act. On the third day of the jury trial, Deborah moved for directed verdict on the issue of causation and the motion was granted. Plaintiffs' case was dismissed. Deborah's clients then settled their counterclaim for the purchase price of the business with plaintiffs.

Cassandra Roberts v. Transportation Management, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Issue Identification No. 21219858-1 (December 2008). Roberts appealed the denial of unemployment compensation benefits arguing she had quit for good reason caused by the employer, a hostile work environment and sexual orientation discrimination. Deborah argued on behalf of Transportation Management that Roberts quit of her own accord and without giving the employer notice of any real or perceived discriminatory issues. Judge Dixon agreed and found Roberts quit for no reason caused by the employer, such that she was not entitled to unemployment compensation benefits.

Bradley J. Buscher v. Dan DeMars d/b/a Dan DeMars Construction, et. al, Court File No. 27-CV-06-11002, Fourth Judicial District, Hennepin County, Judge Wexler (July 2008). Motion for Sanctions granted in favor of Dan DeMars and against Plaintiff Brad Buscher and his law firm Childress, Duffy, Goldblatt, Ltd., based on "inherent power of court, bad faith conduct in litigation (Minn. Stat. 549.211), and Minn. R. Civ. Pr. 56.07 and/or 11.03(a)(2)." Attorneys fees and costs awarded. Penalty to court ordered. Plaintiff referred for constructive criminal contempt investigation to suburban police department for consideration of prosecution based on plaintiff's violation of court's orders.

Wall Drug Store v. Armstrong Extinguisher Service and Diamond D Steam Cleaning, Court File No. C04-113, County of Pennington, Seventh Judicial Circuit, State of South Dakota, Judge Fuller (May 2008). Wall Drug Store sued Armstrong claiming negligence in the servicing and maintenance of its Ansul fire suppression system and Diamond D claiming negligence in the cleaning of the hood and ductwork system following a 2002 fire that began in a deep fat fryer in the back kitchen. Wall Drug claimed 1.1 million in damages. Deborah Eckland, Dan Singel and local counsel, Patrick Duffy, tried this case to the jury from May 12-May 15. The jury found no negligence on either Armstrong or Diamond D. Armstrong and Diamond D, as the prevailing parties, were awarded costs and disbursements against Wall Drug Store.

Louris v. Hunter Fan Company, Court File No. 27-CV-07-2523, Fourth Judicial District, Hennepin County, Judge Zimmerman (January 2008). Dan Singel and Deborah Eckland represented homeowner Gary Louris and MetLife in products liability jury trial. Case resolved mid-trial.

Boegeman v. Juergens Construction, Court File No. 70-CV-05-21179, First Judicial District, Scott County, Judge Macklin (Jury trial October 2006). Plaintiff sued Deborah’s client, Juergens Construction, for breach of contract and breach of statutory new home warranties in the building of plaintiff’s home. Plaintiff claimed multiple construction-related damages and damages for mold remediation in the amount of $150,000. After a six day trial, the jury found no breach of contract and only one breach of statutory warranty with respect to the installation of the siding and windows. The jury awarded $22,000, which was less than Juergens’ Offer of Settlement in the amount of $30,000.

In the Matter of the Revocation of the Child Foster Care License of Julie Baldwin, October 5, 2006, OAH No. 12-1800-17361-2, Administrative Law Judge Mihalchick presiding. Hennepin County revoked Ms. Baldwin’s foster care license after receiving an unverified report that Ms. Baldwin was “rough” with her special needs kids. Several Hennepin County workers testified that they wished they had more providers like Ms. Baldwin providing care to the program’s kids. After a full-day hearing, all of the County’s determinations were set aside. Specifically, the determinations of maltreatment, recurring maltreatment, disqualification from providing direct contact services, risk of harm and license revocation were reversed.

In the Matter of the Temporary Immediate Suspension of the License of Cynthia Sharrar to Provide Family Child Care, November 13, 2005, OAH Docket No. 12-1800-16899-2, Administrative Law Judge Mihalchick presiding. Crow Wing County suspended Ms. Sharrar’s license after she was accused of pinching a child’s cheeks. After a full-day hearing, the County’s determination was affirmed. The judge found there was a reasonable basis for the County’s action, specifically the determinations of “serious” maltreatment and disqualification from providing care to the children served by her program.

Hyland Courts Home Owners Association v. BEI Exterior Maintenance Corp. v. Cole Roofing, Ct. File No. CT 02-016726, Henn. Cty, Judge Scherer (Jury trial 2005):  Plaintiffs sued Deborah’s client, BEI, for negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and negligence in the roofing work it performed on a 190 home complex in 1998. Plaintiffs requested $1,140,000 in damages.  After a 2 ½ week jury trial, the jury returned a verdict finding no negligent misrepresentation, no breach of contract, and more negligence on plaintiffs than BEI, resulting in a zero verdict.

Dakota County Department of Children and Families v. Ashton:  Dakota County found Deborah’s client had committed serious maltreatment, was disqualified from providing in-home daycare services, and revoked her daycare license after a two-year old in her care unexplainedly bit an 8-month-old numerous times during nap time.  The case was heard over 2 ½ days by an administrative law judge, who overturned the county’s determinations.  The ALJ’s order was adopted by the Commissioner of Human Services.

Berry v. Nexus Information Systems, Ct. File No. Court File No. CT 03-004471, Henn. Cty, Judge Crump (Jury trial 2004):  In this case of promissory estoppel, the jury determined that Nexus did not break its promise to Deborah’s client, even though it promised to increase Berry’s salary upon completion of certain certification and to pay for the certification, then later refused to pay for the certification.

Hennepin County Department of Children and Families v. Glenn:  Hennepin County found Deborah’s client had committed maltreatment when her son went to school with a suspicious mark on his face.  The Appeals Referee overturned the finding of maltreatment and the Appeals Referee’s determination was affirmed by the Commissioner of Human Services.

Hennepin County Department of Children and Families v. Trass:  Hennepin County found Deborah’s in-home daycare provider client “guilty” of maltreatment  when she accidentally hit her son in the face during a spanking.  After hearing, the Appeals Referee reversed the County’s determination because the injury was accidental, but the Commissioner of Human Services refused to accept the Appeals Referee’s findings.  The Commissioner’s order was then appealed to District Court, where Judge Oleisky overturned the Commissioner’s Order and reversed the finding of maltreatment.

McKibbin v. Westfield Ins. Co., Ct. File No. PI 01-016890, Henn. Cty, Judge Poston (Jury trial 2002):  Plaintiff sued Westfield for no-fault medical and wage loss benefits.  The jury returned a zero verdict.

Moe v. Sports Restaurants of Burnsville d/b/a Benchwarmer Bob’s, Ct. File No. 19-C7-99-006173, Dakota Cty, Judge Lacy (Jury trial 1999):  Plaintiff sued Benchwarmer Bob’s after he fell down icy steps during a winter storm and tore his rotator cuff.  After a 4 day jury trial, the jury determined that plaintiff was more negligent than Benchwarmer Bob’s, resulting in a zero verdict.

Julie and Randy Anderson v. John Bunce and Triad Transportation, Ct. File No. PI 97-6546, Henn. Cty, Judge Neville (Jury trial 1998):  Plaintiff claimed to have suffered permanent injuries and chronic pain syndrome as a result of being significantly rear-ended by Deborah’s client.  Plaintiff asked the jury to award $990,000 in damages, but the jury only awarded $40,000.

Marcus Smith v. Miriam Weinstein, Ct. File No. PI 97-08008, Henn. Cty, Judge Nord (Jury trial 1998).

Jennifer Everett v. Bruce Schmall, Ct. File No., Henn. Cty, Judge Sommerville (Jury trial 1998).  Plaintiff sued Deborah’s client for injuries sustained in a rear-end automobile accident.  Jury found Deborah’s client was not negligent; thus, not liable for plaintiff’s injuries.

Teame Embaye v. Joe Lukens and Martin Resnick, Ct. File No. PI 97-16300, Henn. Cty, Judge Hedlund (Jury trial 1998).

Amy Swendra v. Robert Nelson, Ct. File No. PI 95-018458, Henn. Cty, Judge Nord (Jury trial 1997): In this low impact fender bender case, the jury found Deborah’s client was negligent for running into the back of plaintiff, but then awarded only $250.

Dalia Wiederhoft v. David Rippberger, Ct. File No. PI 96-15348, Henn. Cty, Judge Gomez (Jury trial 1997).

Laura Friske v. Darla Schoenrock, Ct. File No. PI 96-7155, Henn. Cty, Judge Gary Larson (Jury trial 1997).

Celeste Norman-Jones and Willie Jones v. Jennifer McLearen, Ct. File No. 97-005157, Henn. Cty, Judge Knoll (Jury trial 1998).  Deborah’s client rear-ended plaintiff and plaintiff sued.  The jury found Deborah’s client was not negligent;  therefore, not liable for the injuries plaintiff sustained.

Jascke v. Illinois Farmers, Ct. File No., Henn. Cty, Judge Toussaint (Jury trial 1996):  Plaintiff sued Deborah’s client Illinois Farmers for no-fault medical and wage loss benefits.  The jury determined that plaintiff was not entitled to either.

Carol Grishen v. Tamara Brace, Ct. File No. AC 95-14431, Henn. Cty, Judge Alexander (Jury trial 1996)

Michael Tesfaldet v. Iob Ogbasallasie, Ct. File No. C3-94-841, Ramsey Cty, Judge Connolly (Jury trial 1995):  Deborah’s client, Mr. Ogbasallasie, was helping his friend, Mr. Tesfaldet, get his car cranked.  When Mr. Tesfaldet told him to “go,” Mr. Obgasallasie turned the key in the ignition.  Mr. Testfaldet, who at that time had his hand in one of the motor belts, had three of his fingers cut off.  The parties stipulated to $70,000 in damages and tried liability only to the jury.  The jury returned a verdict of 50-50% fault.

Amy Karnitz v. Jerome Lien, Ct. File No. 91-12752, Henn. Cty, Judge Alexander (Jury trial 1993):  When Ms. Karnitz was a minor, she was involved in an automobile accident with Deborah’s client, which Ms. Karnitz’s father and attorney eventually settled.  When Ms. Karnitz reached 18, she sought to overturn the settlement, claiming she did not give authority to anyone to settle her claim.  The jury determined that both Ms. Karnitz’s father and attorney had authority to enter the settlement and that Ms. Karnitz could not recover further.

Susan King v. John Zipperer, Ct. File No. C1-89-1567, Washington Cty, Judge Albertson (Jury trial 1991):  Plaintiff sued defendants for injuries arising out of a multi-car pile-up on the Hudson Bridge during a snow storm.  Deborah’s client was dismissed on directed verdict after 2 weeks and 1 day of trial after she proved that her client had been hit, but had not hit anyone else.

Williams v. Williams, Ct. File No., Henn. Cty, Judge Scheifelbein (Jury trial 1990).

APPELLATE CASES :

Buscher v. Montag Dev., Inc., 770 N.W.2d 199 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 2009). Deborah and Dan represented Dan DeMars Construction, the targeted defendant builder in this $3 million construction defect case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s granting of summary judgment in favor Dan DeMars Construction, holding that the plaintiff’s claims were untimely under the two-year statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the district court’s decision to sanction plaintiff and his counsel, who were forced to pay the defendants nearly $100,000 in fees and costs, along with a $10,000 fine to the district court. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s petition for review. This case was covered by the Minnesota Lawyer and is now considered one of the most important construction defect cases on the books.

Lower Sioux Indian Community v. Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, 2010 WL 696392 (Minn. Ct. App. March 2, 2010). Deborah and Alan represent Century Construction, one of the third-party defendant subcontractors in this construction defect case. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s determination that the Lower Sioux had to be added to the action as a necessary party pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. Pr. 19.01. The appellate court also reversed the trial court’s order enjoining the Lower Sioux from pursuing parallel litigation in tribal court

Elizabeth R. Johnson v. Francis Spencer and Northland Learning Center, A08-0108, 2008 WL 5335443 (Minn. Ct. App. December 23, 2008). Deborah represented Elizabeth Johnson in a whistleblower action against Spencer and Northland. The case arose out of Ms. Johnson's reporting of violations of state law to her supervisor Spencer. In response, Spencer retaliated against Johnson. The trial court dismissed Ms. Johnson's case on summary judgment, finding Spencer could not be held individually liable as a supervisor, and that Ms. Johnson's claim against Northland came too late. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded Ms. Johnson's whistleblower claim against Northland for trial, finding the claim timely.

Kenneth Neutgens v. Westfield Group, 724 N.W.2d 311 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). The Court of Appeals ruled that No-Fault income loss benefits include compensation for the salary loss of an employee who is the sole shareholder of the employing corporation and are not contingent on proof that the employee’s injuries resulted in a reduction of the corporation’s gross income.

Posthumus v. Brey, 2006 WL 1704141 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). The plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s taxing of costs and disbursements against plaintiff after the jury found the defendant was not liable. The defendant was insured by Westfield Insurance Company. The defendant was also the plaintiff’s mother and she attempted to waive her right to tax costs and disbursements, because she did not want those expenses taxed against her daughter. The Court of Appeals affirmed that the defendant had a duty to cooperate under the Westfield policy and that she could not waive her right to costs and disbursements, an amount that would repay Westfield for the expenses it incurred in defending the defendant.

Hyland Courts Town Homes Owners Ass’n v. BEI Exterior Maintenance Corp., 2006 WL 1806175 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s changing an answer on the special verdict form from “no” to “yes” where the evidence supported the change. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the trial court’s determination that plaintiff was not prejudiced by BEI’s counsel’s statements in closing argument.

Westfield Ins. Co. v. Kroiss, 694 N.W.2d 102 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005): The Court of Appeals ruled that Deborah’s insurance company client had a duty to defend the insured building contractor even though the complaints against him did not indicate that damage had occurred during the insurer’s policy period.

Kuhl v. Heinen, 672 N.W.2d 590 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003):  The estate of a deceased motorcyclist brought an action against a motorist and an in-home daycare provider, who Deborah represented, alleging that the daycare provider was negligent for allowing children to gather near the daycare’s driveway.  The children allegedly distracted the motorist, causing a head-on collision with the motorcyclist.  The District Court dismissed the case against the daycare provider and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Schulte v. LeClaire, 2000 WL 16302 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000): The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's enforcement of settlement when there was no discussion of pursuing underinsured motorist coverage or giving Schmidt notice.

Illinois Farmers Ins. Co. v. Schmuckler, 603 N.W.2d 138 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).

Aaron v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Group, 590 N.W.2d 667 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999):  Deborah represented Illinois Farmers, which moved to vacate an arbitration award of underinsured motorist benefits on the ground that the claimant had disclosed information about the applicable policy limits and settlement amounts to the arbitrators on the day of the arbitration.  While the Court of Appeals upheld the arbitrators’ award, after they refused to recuse themselves, the Court did state that unless the arbitration agreement provides otherwise, “disclosure of insurance policy limit and settlement information in UIM arbitration proceedings should be avoided.”

Limongelli v. GAN National Ins. Co., 590 N.W.2d 167 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999):  Plaintiff brought a breach of contract claim for underinsured motorist benefits against GAN, who Deborah represented.  The District Court granted GAN’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing GAN from the lawsuit, but then vacated his judgment to allow plaintiff more time to appeal.  The Court of Appeals dismissed plaintiff’s appeal as untimely finding the District Court erred when it vacated the judgment to allow more time to appeal.

H.D. v. White and Young Life, 483 N.W.2d 501 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992):  Plaintiff, an alleged victim of sexual abuse, sued Young Life, who Deborah represented, and its director, alleging that the director intentionally and negligently abused him.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s determination that the lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations.

Sutherland v. Allstate Ins. Co., 464 N.W.2d 150 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991):  Plaintiff brought a declaratory judgment action alleging she was entitled to underinsured motorist benefits.  The District Court granted the summary judgment motion of Allstate, who Deborah represented, dismissing the case.  However, the Court of Appeals reversed and found that sufficient Schmidt notice had been provided and that policy allowed for stacking of policy limits.

Doula v. United Technologies Corp., 759 F.Supp. 1377 (D.Minn. 1991).