STATE OF MINNESOTA

DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN

FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

CASE TYPE: CIVIL OTHER

Tyler Vasseur, Rosheeda Credit, Joshua Rea,

and Devon Jenkins,

Court File No.: 27-CV-16-11794

Petitioners,
v.

CITY RESPONDENTS
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY

City of Minneapolis,
and
Casey Joe Carl, in his official capacity
City Clerk, City of Minneapolis;
and
Grace Wachlarowicz, in her official capacity
Director of Elections, City of Minneapolis
and
Ginny Gelms, in her official capacity
Elections Manager, Hennepin County;
Respondents.

Petitioners commenced this action through the filing of a petition pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 204B.44 seeking to compel the City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County to
place a proposed charter amendment to raise the minimum wage in the City on the ballot for the
November 8, 2016, general election which included a ballot question regarding Petitioners
proposed minimum wage amendment to the Minneapolis City Charter. The Court granted the
petition in an Order dated August 22, 2016.

The City, Respondent Casey Joe Carl, and

Respondent Grace Wachlarowicz (collectively the City) appealed the decision to the

507238.1

Minnesota Court of Appeals and filed a petition for accelerated review to the Minnesota
Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 118 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. In
order to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of time and resources, the City respectfully requests
that enforcement of the Courts August 22, 2016 Order be stayed while the appeal is pending.
ARGUMENT
Minnesota Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 108.02 allows a party to move the trial court
for a stay of enforcement of a judgment or order pending appeal. When determining whether or
not to grant a stay pending appeal, the trial court . . . must balance the appealing partys interest
in preserving the status quo, so that effective relief will be available if the appeal succeeds,
against the interests of the public or the prevailing party in enforcing the decision and ensuring
that they remain secure in victory while the appeal is pending. DRJ, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 741
N.W.2d 141, 144 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007) (citations omitted).
Here, the City has a compelling interest in preserving the status quo while pursuing
accelerated review of the Courts Order by the Minnesota Supreme Court. This case involves
fundamental and disputed questions regarding the scope of the right of citizens to petition for the
enactment of municipal legislation through a charter amendment which must be resolved prior to
the upcoming general election and the start of early voting on September 23, 2016. This is
precisely the type of case that is appropriate for immediate review and determination by the
Minnesota Supreme Court. Minn. R. Civ. App. Proc. 118, Subd. 1. (authorizing accelerated
review for cases of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from the normal
appellate procedure to require immediate determination in the Supreme Court.).

In these

circumstances and in order to preserve the Supreme Courts ability to order effective relief and to
avoid undue confusion and expense, enforcement of the Courts judgment must be stayed.

507238.1

The City understands the time-sensitive nature of this matter and has chosen the most
efficient method to appeal this decision. Notwithstanding the appeal, the City will provide the
form of the ballot question to Hennepin County by Friday, August 26, 2016 consistent with
Minnesota Statutes, Section 205.16 subd. 4. This will allow the Hennepin County Auditor to be
prepared for immediate printing of the ballots either including the proposed amendment or not
consistent with the final order of the Minnesota Supreme Court. Requiring the City and
Hennepin County to prepare and print the ballots while the appeal is pending could result in
needless waste of effort and taxpayer resources and open the door to potential confusion in the
event that the Supreme Court concludes that the proposed charter amendment is not an
appropriate question to be included on the ballot for this years general election. The potential
harm to the City, Hennepin County, and voters through waste and confusion substantially
outweighs whatever prejudice Petitioners may experience from staying enforcement of the
portion to the Courts Order while the appeal is pending.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the City respectfully moves the Court to stay enforcement of its
order pending appeal.

507238.1

Dated: August 23, 2016

LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.

s/Charles N. Nauen
Charles N. Nauen (#121216)
David J. Zoll (#0330681)
Rachel A. Kitze Collins (#0396555)
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
(612) 339-6900
cnnauen@locklaw.com
djzoll@locklaw.com
rakitzecollins@locklaw.com
SUSAN L. SEGAL
City Attorney
Tracey N. Fussy (#311807)
Brian S. Carter (#390613)
Assistant City Attorneys
City Hall, Room 210
350 South 5th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
(612) 673-2010
tracey.fussy@minneapolismn.gov
brian.carter@minneapolismn.gov
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, CASEY JOE
CARL, AND GRACE WACHLAROWICZ

507238.1