P. 1
Summons & Verified Complaint 10 31 13

Summons & Verified Complaint 10 31 13

|Views: 2,109|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Rachel E. Stassen-Berger on Oct 31, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/21/2013

pdf

text

original

62-CV-13-7640

Filed in Second Judicial District Court 10/31/2013 8:58:14 AM Ramsey County Civil, MN

STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY

DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Jim Knoblach, Plaintiff, vs. State of Minnesota, Governor Mark Dayton, in his official capacity, Commissioner Spencer Cronk of the Minnesota Department of Administration, in his official capacity and the Minnesota Department of Administration, Defendants.

Court File No. ________________

SUMMONS

THIS SUMMONS IS DIRECTED TO State of Minnesota, Governor Mark Dayton, in his official capacity, Commissioner Spencer Cronk of the Minnesota Department of Administration, in his official capacity and the Minnesota Department of Administration: 1. YOU ARE BEING SUED. The Plaintiff has started a lawsuit against you. The Plaintiff’s Complaint against you is attached to this summons. Do not throw these papers away. They are official papers that affect your rights. You must respond to this lawsuit even though it may not yet be filed with the Court and there may be no court file number on this summons. 2. YOU MUST REPLY WITHIN 20 DAYS TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS. You must give or mail to the person who signed this summons a written response called an Answer within 20 days of the date on which you received this Summons. You must send a copy of your Answer to the person who signed this summons at the address below: Erick G. Kaardal Mohrman & Kaardal, PA 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

62-CV-13-7640

3. YOU MUST RESPOND TO EACH CLAIM. The Answer is your written response to the Plaintiff's Complaint. In your Answer you must state whether you agree or disagree with each paragraph of the Complaint. If you believe the Plaintiff should not be given everything asked for in the Complaint, you must say so in your Answer. 4. YOU WILL LOSE YOUR CASE IF YOU DO NOT SEND A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT TO THE PERSON WHO SIGNED THIS SUMMONS. If you do not answer within 20 days, you will lose this case. You will not get to tell your side of the story, and the Court may decide against you and award the Plaintiff everything asked for in the complaint. If you do not want to contest the claims stated in the complaint, you do not need to respond. A default judgment can then be entered against you for the relief requested in the complaint. 5. LEGAL ASSISTANCE. You may wish to get legal help from a lawyer. If you do not have a lawyer, the Court Administrator may have information about places where you can get legal assistance. Even if you cannot get legal help, you must still provide a written Answer to protect your rights or you may lose the case. 6. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION. The parties may agree to or be ordered to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process under Rule 114 of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice. You must still send your written answer to the Complaint even if you expect to use alternative means of resolving this dispute.

MOHRMAN & KAARDAL, P.A.

Dated: October 31, 2013

/s/Erick G. Kaardal Erick G. Kaardal, #229647 James R. Magnuson, #389084 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-1074 Attorneys for Plaintiff

2

62-CV-13-7640

STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY Jim Knoblach, Plaintiff, vs. State of Minnesota, Governor Mark Dayton, in his official capacity, Commissioner Spencer Cronk of the Minnesota Department of Administration, in his official capacity and the Minnesota Department of Administration, Defendants.

DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No. ________________

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION

The Plaintiff, Jim Knoblach, for his complaint for declaratory judgment and injunction alleges and states as follows: Introduction This is a taxpayer action brought by former State Representative Jim Knoblach for declaratory and equitable relief challenging a law passed in 2013 by the state legislature, House File 677, the state’s omnibus tax bill. The 2013 Omnibus Tax Bill made changes to: individual income, estate and gift taxes; corporate tax, cigarette and tobacco taxes; sales tax, property taxes and property tax refunds. However, the Omnibus Tax Bill also included unrelated provisions embracing more than one subject. In particular, the bill included provisions for Senate legislative office facilities, committing $3,000,000 to the predesign and design of the Senate facilities, and authorization for the Commissioner of the Minnesota

62-CV-13-7640

Department of Administration to enter into a long-term lease-purchase agreement for those facilities having a reported construction cost of $89.5 million. The Senate legislative facilities are not related to the taxation subject of the Omnibus Tax Bill. In other words, H. F. 677 embraces more than one subject. Therefore, the law violates Article IV, § 17 of the Minnesota Constitution requiring only one subject per law. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the portions of H. F. 677 regarding legislative office facilities violate the single subject clause of the Minnesota Constitution, Art. IV, § 17, and seeks a court order to enjoin the state from executing those provisions once found unconstitutional. Jurisdiction 1. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court under Article VI, § 3 of the

Minnesota Constitution, Minnesota Statutes §§ 484.01 and 555.01. Parties 2. Plaintiff Jim Knoblach is a former elected member of the Minnesota House of

Representatives. The Plaintiff is a resident and taxpayer of the state of Minnesota. As such, the Plaintiff has taxpayer standing to bring this action. 3. Commissioner Spencer Cronk of the Minnesota Department of

Administration, in his official capacity, and the Minnesota Department of Administration are Defendants. The Commissioner of Administration and his Department are responsible for overseeing and managing the administrative functions of other executive branch state agencies, including but not limited to their purchasing and contracting and facilities management. State law also grants the Commissioner and his Department the authority to 2

62-CV-13-7640

engage in strategic planning efforts for the state and to investigate and study the management of state agencies, reorganizing them when necessary to ensure effective and efficient operations. Under H. F. 677, the legislature appropriated moneys to the Department of Administration and authorized it to enter into long-term lease-purchase agreements for legislative facilities and to expend moneys for the predesign and design of those legislative facilities. 4. Governor Mark Dayton, in his official capacity, and the State of Minnesota are

Defendants. Governor Dayton is responsible for the enactment of H.F. 677 as law and as passed by the legislature. Under Article IV, § 23, once the governor has the bill, he or she may: sign it and the bill becomes law; veto it within three days; or allow it to become law by not signing it. The Omnibus Tax Bill, H.F. 677, became law on May 23, 2013. Factual Background 5. House File 677 (“H.F. 677” or “the Omnibus Tax Bill”) was introduced to the

Minnesota House of Representatives on February 18, 2013. Subsequently, it was referred to the House Committees on Rules and Legislative Administration, which in turn on February 19, 2013, moved that the bill be recommended to pass and re-referred it to the House Committee on Taxes. On a vote of 71-58, the House referred the Omnibus Tax Bill to the Committee on Taxes. On April 18, 2013, the Committee on Taxes recommended the Omnibus Tax Bill be passed as amended and re-referred to the House Ways and Means Committee. The House Ways and Means Committee recommended the bill be passed as amended two days later on April 20, 2013.

3

62-CV-13-7640

6.

The Minnesota House of Representatives, on April 24, 2013, passed, as

amended, the Omnibus Tax Bill, H. F. 677, by a vote of 69-64. It was then presented to the Minnesota Senate. At the time of the bill’s first passage, H. F. 677 did not have provisions for legislative facilities, language committing $3,000,000 to the predesign and design of the facilities, and authorization for the Commissioner of Administration to enter into a longterm lease-purchase agreement for those facilities. 7. After the introduction and first reading of the Minnesota Senate’s version of

an omnibus tax bill, Senate File 552 (“S. F. 552”), the companion bill to H. F. 677, the Senate referred the bill to the Senate Rules and Administration Committee on February 18, 2013, and on a request to divide out the bill, re-referred it to the Senate Taxes Committee on February 21, 2013. 8. At its introduction, S. F. 552 did not have provisions for Senate legislative

facilities, language committing $3,000,000 to the predesign and design of the facilities, and authorization for the Commissioner of Administration to enter into a long-term leasepurchase agreement for those facilities. 9. On April 24, 2013, the Senate Taxes Committee convened to mark up its

version of the tax bill, S. F. 552. An amendment was offered containing the provisions for Senate legislative facilities, committing $3,000,000 to the predesign and design of the facilities, and authorizing the Commissioner of Administration to enter into a long-term lease-purchase agreement for those facilities. Senator Julianne Ortman, the Minority Committee Leader, objected to the amendment stating that “this should be in the bonding bill”, that “this is a surprise”, that “we haven’t had a hearing on this in this Committee”, and 4

62-CV-13-7640

that “I will be voting no.” Senator Tom Bakk spoke in favor of the amendment, saying that “bonding bills often times get caught up in end of session politics, and the Capitol renovations transcend politics and should be at a level above the political maneuvering that gets done at the end of a session.” 10. The amendment to the Senate Omnibus Tax Bill regarding the legislative

office facilities passed on a divided voice vote with several Tax Committee members audibly voicing their opposition. Later that day the Senate Omnibus Tax Bill, S.F. 552, was passed as amended which included the provisions for Senate legislative facilities, committing $3,000,000 to the predesign and design of the facilities, and authorization for the Commissioner of Administration to enter into a long-term lease-purchase agreement for those facilities. 11. On April 26, 2013, after the passage of the House version of its omnibus tax

bill (H. F. 677) on April 24, 2013, the Senate found H. F. 677 not identical to S. F. 552 and substituted the language of S. F. 552 as amended in H. F. 677. Thereafter, subsequent votes on the Senate Omnibus Tax Bill are referenced as H. F. 677, not S. F. 552. 12. Under Article IV, § 17 of the Minnesota Constitution the section provides that

“no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.” 13. Under Article XI, § 5(a) of the Minnesota Constitution, the governing section

provides that “to acquire and to better public land and buildings and other public improvements of a capital nature and to provide money to be appropriated or loaned to any agency or political subdivision of the state for such purposes if the law authorizing the debt is adopted by the vote of at least three-fifths of the members of each house of the 5

62-CV-13-7640

legislature….” The “three-fifths of the members of each house of the legislature” is also referred to as a “60% supermajority.” 14. Under Article XI, § 5(a) a bonding bill would require a three-fifths vote ― a

60% supermajority ― to pass each house of the legislature. In contrast, a tax bill requires only a majority of each house of the legislature. 15. On April 29, the Senate further amended and then failed to pass H. F. 677 by

a vote of 32-34. After a recess and meetings of the respective caucuses, H. F. 677 was brought back to the Senate floor and after further debate passed by a vote of 35-31. Upon passage, H.F. 677 did include the legislative office facilities provisions, committing $3,000,000 to the predesign and design of the facilities, and authorizing the Commissioner of Administration to enter into a long-term lease-purchase agreement for those facilities. 16. On May 1, 2013, the Senate returned to the House the Senate’s version of H.

F. 677 with its amendments to the tax bill. House Representative Lenczewski moved that the House refuse to concur in the Senate amendments to H. F. No. 677, that the Speaker appoint a Conference Committee of five members of the House. The House requested that a like committee be appointed by the Senate to confer on the disagreeing votes of the two houses. The motion prevailed. 17. The House Speaker announced the appointment of House members

Lenczewski; Davnie; Anzelc; Benson, J., and Norton to a Conference Committee on H. F. No. 677. The Senate appointed five members of the Senate to the Conference Committee: Skoe, Rest, Dziddzic, Koenen, and Senjem. The Committee members would later submit to both houses a Conference Committee Report on H. F. 677. 6

62-CV-13-7640

18.

Meanwhile, on May 17, 2013, H. F. 270, the Omnibus Capital Investment

[Bonding] Bill, was brought to the floor of the House for a vote. H. F. 270 did contain language for Senate legislative office facilities, and committing $3,000,000 to the predesign and design of the facilities. 19. H.F. 270 did not pass, because it failed to get 81 votes, the “60%

supermajority” of votes required by Article XI, Section 5(a) of the Minnesota Constitution, receiving 76 votes in favor and 56 against. 20. On May 19, 2013, the Minnesota House of Representatives adopted the

Conference Committee Report on H. F. 677 and by a vote of 69-65 passed the Omnibus Tax Bill. The Omnibus Tax Bill passed by the House of Representatives did contain the provisions for the legislative office facilities. 21. On May 20, 2013, the last day of session, the Minnesota Senate adopted the

Conference Committee Report and by a vote of 36-30 passed the Omnibus Tax Bill, H. F. 677. The Omnibus Tax Bill passed by the Senate did contain the provisions for the legislative office facilities. 22. On May 20, 2013, the last day of session, the Minnesota House, by a vote of

121-10, passed a new Omnibus Capital Investment [Bonding] Bill, H. F. 1070. House File No. 1070 did not contain language for Senate legislative facilities, committing $3,000,000 to the predesign and design of the facilities, and authorization for the Commissioner of Administration to enter into a long-term lease-purchase agreement for those facilities. 23. On May 20, 2013, the last day of session, the Minnesota Senate, by a vote of

58-6, passed a new Omnibus Capital Investment [Bonding] Bill, H.F. 1070. House File No. 7

62-CV-13-7640

1070 did not contain language for Senate legislative facilities, committing $3,000,000 to the predesign and design of the facilities, and authorization for the Commissioner of Administration to enter into a long-term lease-purchase agreement for those facilities. 24. The Omnibus Tax Bill was presented to Governor Dayton on May 22, 2013.

Governor Dayton knew the Omnibus Tax Bill, H. F. 677 violated the Minnesota Constitution, namely, Article IV, § 17 of the Minnesota Constitution because it embraced more than one subject. 25. The Governor has the constitutional authority to veto bills or to utilize a line-

item veto. The Governor did not exercise his authority to veto in whole or in part the Omnibus Tax Bill. Instead, the Governor signed the bill on May 23, 2013. The Secretary of State filed the law on May 23, 2013, and is presently found under Chapter 143 of the Laws of Minnesota. CLAIM The Omnibus Tax Bill embraces more than one subject violating Article IV, § 17 of the Minnesota Constitution. 26. 27. Paragraphs 1 through 25 are incorporated under this claim as if fully restated. Article IV, § 17 of the Minnesota Constitution provides that “no law shall

embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.” The Minnesota Legislature and Governor are bound by Article IV, § 17. 28. The Minnesota House of Representatives passed H. F. 677 prior to a

Conference Committee with members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. H. F. 677 when passed by the House did not have provisions related to legislative office facilities. 8

62-CV-13-7640

29.

The Minnesota Senate passed H. F. 677 after inserting the language of S. F.

552 into it. S. F. 552 was the companion bill to the House omnibus tax bill, H. F. 677, prior to a Conference Committee with members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. After the bill was reported out of the Senate Tax Committee on April 24, 2013 and presented to the Senate as amended, provisions for Senate legislative office facilities are found. 30. On May 19, 2013, the House of Representatives adopted the Conference

Committee Report and repassed H. F. 677, the Omnibus Tax Bill, by a vote of 69-65. 31. On May 20, 2013, the Senate adopted the Conference Committee Report and

repassed H. F. 677, the Omnibus Tax Bill, by a vote of 36-30. 32. 22, 2013. 33. The Governor has the constitutional authority to veto bills or to utilize a lineThe Omnibus Tax Bill, H. F. 677, was presented to Governor Dayton on May

item veto. The Governor did not exercise his authority to veto in whole or in part the Omnibus Tax Bill. 34. At all times prior to signing the Omnibus Tax Bill into law, Governor Dayton

knew the Omnibus Tax Bill, H. F. 677, contained more than one subject in violation of Minnesota’s Constitution. Governor did not veto the Bill or exercise his right to utilize a line-item veto. Instead, Governor Dayton signed the Omnibus Tax Bill into law on May 23, 2013. 35. When the Governor signs a bill into law he does so on behalf of the State of

Minnesota for the State of Minnesota. The Omnibus Tax Bill, H. F. 677 law was 9

62-CV-13-7640

subsequently filed with the Secretary of State on May 23, 2013 after the Governor signed the Bill into law. 36. The Governor of Minnesota, as part of the Executive Branch of government,

also oversees the departments and commissioners under his authority inclusive of the Minnesota Department of Administration. The Governor ensures that policies or directives as passed by the legislature are executed accordingly. 37. The Omnibus Tax Bill, as enacted into law, contains provisions for Senate

legislative office facilities, committing $3,000,000 to the predesign and design of the facilities, and authorizing the Commissioner of Administration to enter into a long-term leasepurchase agreement for those facilities. The legislative office facilities and related authorizations are not related to the taxation subject of the Omnibus Tax Bill. 38. The Commissioner of Administration, or his representatives, may negotiate

and enter into a long-term lease-purchase agreement for legislative office facilities on behalf of the State of Minnesota as he and his Department has been authorized to do so under the Omnibus Tax Bill. 39. The long-term lease-purchase agreement for legislative office facilities,

appropriations for the design of the building, and authorization for the Commissioner of Administration to enter into this agreement is a policy and appropriation issue specifically relating to capital improvements unrelated to the Omnibus Tax Bill, which is specifically related to tax issues. 40. The House and Senate Capital Investment Committees have jurisdiction over

capital improvements. The 2013-2014 Rules adopted by the House and Senate both name 10

62-CV-13-7640

Capital Investment Committees as standing committees of each body. An Omnibus Capital Investment Bill, also known as the Omnibus Bonding Bill (H. F. 1070), was passed by both bodies on May 20, 2013 and signed into law. This bill did not contain language appropriating moneys for Senate legislative office facilities, committing $3,000,000 to the predesign and design of the facilities, and authorizing the Commissioner of Administration to enter into a long-term lease-purchase agreement for those facilities. 41. An earlier Omnibus Capital Investment [Bonding] Bill (H. F. 270) that did

contain language for Senate legislative office facilities and committing $3,000,000 to the predesign and design of the facilities had failed in the House on May 17, 2013. 42. Lease-purchase agreements have only rarely been used as a financing tool in

constructing major state buildings. The construction of the Orville Freeman and Elmer Anderson Buildings are the only major state buildings that have been authorized through lease-purchase agreements. Both buildings were authorized in the 2002 Omnibus Capital Investment Bill. 43. The construction of a new building for the Department of Revenue, which

collects state taxes, was not authorized in an omnibus tax bill. The predesign money was authorized in the 1995 Omnibus Capital Investment Bill that was passed in the first special session that year ((special session) H. F. 1 § 2, subd. 2); the design money was authorized in the 1996 Omnibus Capital Investment Bill (Chapter 463, § 13, subd. 8); and the construction of the building was authorized in the 1997 Omnibus Capital Investment Bill (chapter 246, § 30).

11

62-CV-13-7640

44.

The Omnibus Tax Bill, H. F. 677, embraces more than one subject.

Accordingly, H. F. 677, the Omnibus Tax Bill, as for the provisions for legislative office facilities, committing $3,000,000 to the predesign and design of the facilities and authorizing the commissioner of administration to enter into a long-term lease-purchase agreement for those facilities violates Article IV, § 17 of the Minnesota Constitution. 45. The Omnibus Tax Bill, H. F. 677, violates the Minnesota Constitution because

it contains more than one subject, provisions for legislative office facilities, committing $3,000,000 to the predesign and design of the facilities and authorizing the commissioner of administration to enter into a long-term lease-purchase agreement for those facilities, those provisions are therefore illegal, and further, any moneys expended and to be expended are misappropriations of tax dollars by public officials. Relief Requested Wherefore, the Plaintiff, Jim Knoblach, seeks relief from the Court an order against the Defendants, Governor Mark Dayton, in his official capacity, the State of Minnesota, Commissioner Spencer Cronk, in his official capacity, and the Minnesota Department of Administration as follows: 1. Declaring that H. F. 677, the Omnibus Tax Bill, as it pertains to the provisions regarding Senate legislative office facilities, committing $3,000,000 to the predesign and design of the facilities and authorizing the commissioner of administration the authority to enter into a long-term lease-purchase agreement for those facilities as unconstitutional because the provisions are part of a law

12

62-CV-13-7640

embracing more than one subject passed in violation of the Minnesota Constitution, Article IV, § 17; 2. Enjoining the State of Minnesota, Governor Dayton, Commissioner Cronk, and the Minnesota Department of Administration from expending any moneys appropriated for the predesign and design of legislative office facilities; 3. Enjoining Commissioner Cronk of the Minnesota Department of Administration or any representative or agent of the Department from entering into a long-term lease-purchase agreement for legislative office facilities; 4. Enjoining the State of Minnesota from enforcing any other provision of the Omnibus Tax Bill related to legislative office facilities, the predesign and design of the facilities, and the authority to enter into a long-term lease-purchase agreement for those facilities, and the expenditure of any moneys for the construction of those facilities; 5. Awarding the plaintiff his attorney fees, expenses, and costs; and 6. Granting any other relief the court deems just and proper. MOHRMAN & KAARDAL, P.A. Dated: October 31, 2013. /s/Erick G. Kaardal Erick G. Kaardal, Atty No. 229647 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-1074 kaardal@mklaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff

13

62-CV-13-7640

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The undersigned hereby acknowledges that costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded pursuant to Minn. Stat. §549.211, subd. 3, to the party against whom the allegations in this pleading, written motion, or paper are asserted.

/s/Erick G. Kaardal Erick G. Kaardal

14

62-CV-13-7640

VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Executed on October 31, 2013 /s/Jim Knoblach Jim Knoblach

15

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->