UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Gene Rechtzigel individually,

Gene Rechtzigel as Personal Representative

for Estate of Frank H. Rechtzigel and as

Trustee of any Trust thereunder,

Gene Rechtzigel as Trustee

for the Evelyn I. Rechtzigel Trust, and

Rex Rentals-F.R.R.,

Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM OPINION

v. AND ORDER

Civil No. 15-4365 ADM/JSM

Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A.,

Mohrman, Kaardal, & Erickson, P.A.,

Erik Gregg Kaardal, in individual and official capacity,

William F. Mohrman, in individual and official capacity,

Gregory M. Erickson, in individual and official capacity,

James R. Magnuson, in individual and official capacity,

Fischer Market Place, LLP,

Gerald S. Duffy, in individual and official capacity,

Matthew S. Duffy, in individual and official capacity,

Michael R. Moline, in individual and official capacity,

Fischer Sand & Aggregate,

Peter Wells Fischer, in individual and official capacity,

Magellan Pipeline Company, LP,

Magellan Midstream Partners, LP,

Christopher R. Grote, in individual and official capacity,

City of Apple Valley,

Michael G. Dougherty, in individual and official capacity,

Robert B. Bauer, in individual and official capacity,

Brian John Wisdorf, in individual and official capacity,

Thomas R. Donely, in individual and official capacity,

Mary Hamann-Roland, in individual and official capacity,

John Bergman, in individual and official capacity,

Tom Goodwin, in individual and official capacity,

Ruth Grendahl, in individual and official capacity,

Clint Hooppaw, in individual and official capacity,

Examiner of Titles, Dakota County,

James P. O'Connell, in individual and official capacity,

CASE 0:15-cv-04365-ADM-JSM Document 144 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 6

Madhavi Rajulapati,

Kristin Gasteazoro,

Michelle Larson, and

Lyle Hearn,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

Gene Rechtzigel, pro se.

Gregory M. Erickson, Esq., Mohrman, Kaardal, & Erickson, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, on behalf

of Defendants Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A., Mohrman, Kaardal, & Erickson, P.A., Erik Gregg

Kaardal, William F. Mohrman, Gregory M. Erickson, and James R. Magnuson.

Aaron R. Hartman, Esq., Monroe Moxness Berg, P.A., Edina, MN, on behalf of Defendants

Fischer Market Place, LLP, Fischer Sand & Aggregate, and Peter Wells Fischer.

Colleen McGarry, Esq., Meagher & Geer, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Defendants

Gerald S. Duffy, Matthew S. Duffy, Michael R. Moline, Michael G. Dougherty, Robert B.

Bauer, Brian John Wisdorf, and Thomas R. Donely.

Bryan A. Welp, Esq., Lindquist & Vennum, LLP, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Defendants

Magellan Pipeline Company, LP, Magellan Midstream Partners, LP, and Christopher R. Grote.

Shelley M. Ryan, Esq., Hoff, Barry & Kozar, P.A., Eden Prairie, MN, on behalf of Defendants

City of Apple Valley, Mary Hamann-Roland, John Bergman, Tom Goodwin, Ruth Grendahl, and

Clint Hooppaw.

Jeffrey A. Timmerman, Esq., Assistant County Attorney, Dakota County Attorney’s Office,

Hastings, MN, on behalf of Defendant James P. O’Connell.

Eric J. Steinhoff, Esq., Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of

Defendant Kristin Gasteazoro.

Michael J. McNamara, Esq., American Family Insurance, Eden Prairie, MN, on behalf of

Defendant Michelle Larson.

Madhavi Rajulapati, pro se.

Lyle Hearn, pro se.

______________________________________________________________________________

CASE 0:15-cv-04365-ADM-JSM Document 144 Filed 04/11/16 Page 2 of 6

On April 8, 2016, the undersigned United States District Judge heard oral argument on

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Docket No. 15], Defendants’ Motions to

Dismiss [Docket Nos. 38, 52, 56, 61, 67, 72, 84, 85, 102, 107], and Defendants’ Motions for

Sanctions [Docket Nos. 113, 120, 125, 133]. Although Plaintiffs did not file a response to

Defendants’ motions, the Court allowed Plaintiff Gene Rechtzigel an opportunity to be heard in

opposition to these motions.

For the reasons stated on the record and set forth below, the

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is denied and the Motions to Dismiss are granted. The

Motions for Sanctions remain under advisement and will be addressed in a future order. See

Cleveland v. Berkson, 878 F.2d 1034, 1036 (7th Cir. 1989) (“[A] district court’s intentional

deferral of action on a motion for sanctions, when it enters a judgment definitively and

completely disposing of the underlying action, constitutes a determination on the part of the

district court that its disposition of the motion for sanctions will not impact upon its resolution of

the underlying litigation.”).

The Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is denied because, as explained below, the

Court lacks jurisdiction. Further, both Plaintiffs and Defendants agreed at the hearing that the

matter is now moot. The debt which was the subject of the motion has now been discharged.

The Motions to Dismiss are granted because the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claims

alleged in the Amended Complaint [Docket No. 26]. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3)

dictates that “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the

As a non-lawyer, Rechtzigel may represent himself pro se but may not represent other

entities. Knoefler v. United Bank of Bismarck

, 20 F.3d 347, 347–48 (8th Cir. 1994).

Nonetheless, for the purpose of resolving the pending motions, the Court allowed Rechtzigel to

be heard on behalf of all the plaintiffs named in the Amended Complaint [Docket No. 26].

CASE 0:15-cv-04365-ADM-JSM Document 144 Filed 04/11/16 Page 3 of 6

court must dismiss the action.” Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts do

not possess subject matter jurisdiction over challenges to state court decisions. See Rooker v.

Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460

U.S. 462, 476 (1983). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies in cases where (1) the federal court

plaintiff lost in state court, (2) the plaintiff complains of injuries caused by a state court

judgment, (3) the plaintiff invites district court review of that judgment, and (4) the state court

judgment was rendered before the district court proceedings commenced. See Skit Int’l, Ltd. v.

DAC Techs. of Ark., Inc., 487 F.3d 1154, 1156–57 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v.

Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 292 (2005)).

All the prerequisites of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine are satisfied in this case. Plaintiffs

lost in multiple state court proceedings related to the claims at issue here. See In re Application

of Gene Rechtzigel, Pro Se, to Determine Boundary and Title to Certain Land, No. A14-449,

2014 WL 6609118, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2014); In re Application of Fischer Sand &

Aggregate, LLP, No. A14-735, 2015 WL 1128658, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2015);

Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A. v. Rechtzigel, No. A14-1499, 2015 WL 4714883, at *1 (Minn. Ct.

App. Oct. 28, 2015). Plaintiffs complain of “destruction to [their] liberty interests, real property,

and constitutional rights” that was caused by the judgments in the state court proceedings. See

Am. Compl. ¶ 9. The Plaintiffs’ claims invite this Court to review the correctness of the

property rights determination made by the state court. See

id. ¶¶ 8–10; Willhite v. Collins, 385

F. Supp. 2d 926, 929 (D. Minn. 2005). Finally, this proceeding commenced after the state court

judgments were rendered. See

Compl. [Docket No. 1] (filed Dec. 14, 2015).

In addition to the Court lacking jurisdiction, the Amended Complaint fails to state “a

CASE 0:15-cv-04365-ADM-JSM Document 144 Filed 04/11/16 Page 4 of 6

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Even given a generous reading, the

Amended Complaint does not allege sufficient facts for the Court “to draw the reasonable

inference” that the more than two dozen named defendants engaged in a conspiracy to deprive

Plaintiffs of their rights. Id.

Further elaboration of the bases for the Court’s ruling in this matter was stated on the

record at the hearing, a transcript of which shall be available to the parties via the Court’s

electronic filing system.

Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated on

the record at oral argument, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Docket No. 15] is DENIED;

2. Defendants Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A., Mohrman, Kaardal, & Erickson, P.A., Erik Gregg

Kaardal, William F. Mohrman, Gregory M. Erickson, and James R. Magnuson’s Motion

to Dismiss [Docket No. 38] is GRANTED;

3. Defendant Kristin Gasteazoro’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 52] is GRANTED;

4. Defendants Magellan Pipeline Company, LP, Magellan Midstream Partners, LP, and

Christopher R. Grote’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 56] is GRANTED;

5. Defendants City of Apple Valley, Mary Hamann-Roland, John Bergman, Tom Goodwin,

Ruth Grendahl, and Clint Hooppaw’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 61] is GRANTED;

6. Defendants Michael G. Dougherty, Robert B. Bauer, Brian John Wisdorf, Thomas R.

Donely, Gerald S. Duffy, Matthew S. Duffy, and Michael R. Moline’s Motion to Dismiss

[Docket No. 67] is GRANTED;

CASE 0:15-cv-04365-ADM-JSM Document 144 Filed 04/11/16 Page 5 of 6

7. Defendants Fischer Market Place, LLP, Fischer Sand & Aggregate, and Peter Wells

Fischer’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 72] is GRANTED;

8. Defendant James P. O’Connell’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 84] is GRANTED;

9. Defendant Michelle Larson’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 85] is GRANTED;

10. Defendant Madhavi Rajulapati’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 102] is GRANTED;

11. Defendant Lyle Hearn’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 107] is GRANTED; and

12. Defendants’ Motions for Sanctions [Docket Nos. 113, 120, 125, 133] remain under

advisement.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

BY THE COURT:

s/Ann D. Montgomery

ANN D. MONTGOMERY

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 11, 2016.

CASE 0:15-cv-04365-ADM-JSM Document 144 Filed 04/11/16 Page 6 of 6