01-CV-19-1198 Filed in District Court

State of Minnesota
4/4/2023

STATE OF MINNESOTA
April 4, 2023

IN COURT OF APPEALS

_____________________________________

Andrea Anderson, SPECIAL

TERM
Appellant, ORDER 1

vs. A23-0374
A23-0484
Aitkin Pharmacy Services, LLC dba Thrifty
White Pharmacy,

Respondent,

George Badeaux,

Respondent.
_____________________________________

Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Smith, Tracy

M., Judge.

BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR THE

FOLLOWING REASONS:

Appellant Andrea Anderson filed appeal A23-0374 on March 10, 2023. According

to the notice of appeal, appellant seeks review of January 12, 2023 orders denying

appellant’s motion for a new trial and motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL). In

a March 13, 2023 order, this court questioned (a) whether the January 12, 2023 order

denying appellant’s motion for JMOL is independently appealable; (b) if not, whether the

1
Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order is nonprecedential, except
as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
 01-CV-19-1198 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
4/4/2023

district court entered a final judgment adopting the jury’s verdict; and (c) if not, whether

the part of the appeal seeking review of the January 12, 2023 order denying appellant’s

motion for JMOL must be dismissed as premature. Appellant filed an informal

memorandum.

On March 29, 2023, appellant filed appeal A23-0484. According to the notice of

appeal, appellant seeks review of a March 17, 2023 judgment adopting the jury’s verdict

and the January 12, 2023 order denying appellant’s motion for JMOL.

The district court administrator’s register of actions indicates that appellant sued

respondents Aitkin Pharmacy Services LLC and George Badeaux in 2019, asserting

discrimination claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.01-.50

(2022).

The case was tried to a jury. On August 5, 2022, the jury returned a verdict finding

that respondents did not discriminate against appellant in violation of the Minnesota

Human Rights Act and finding that appellant suffered $25,000 in emotional harm as a result

of Badeaux’s conduct. In September 2022, appellant filed a motion for a new trial and a

motion for JMOL. In separate January 12, 2023 orders, the district court denied appellant’s

motion for a new trial and motion for JMOL. On March 17, 2023, the district court issued

an order adopting the jury’s verdict and entered judgment on that order.

1.

Appellant acknowledges that an order denying a motion for JMOL is not listed in

Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03 as an independently appealable decision. Appellant argues

2
 01-CV-19-1198 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
4/4/2023

that the district court’s January 12, 2023 order denying appellant’s JMOL motion is still

appealable because Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01, subd. 2, indicates that, when the district

court issues an order denying a motion for JMOL, “the time for appeal begins to run upon

the date that a party serves notice of the filing of that order,” regardless of whether the

district court entered judgment.

Unless otherwise provided by law, if any party serves and files a proper and timely

postdecision motion of a type specified in Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01, subd. 2, the time

for appeal of the order or judgment that is the subject of the motion runs for all parties from

service by any party of notice of filing of the order disposing of the last such motion

outstanding. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01, subd. 2. The list of the rule’s tolling motions

includes motions for JMOL under Minn. R. Civ. P. 50.02. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01,

subd. 2(a).

If a motion is a proper and timely postdecision tolling motion under Minn. R. Civ.

App. P. 104.01, subd. 2, the motion tolls the time to appeal the order or judgment that is

the subject of the motion until service by a party of notice of filing of the order disposing

of the postdecision motion. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01, subd. 2, does not provide that

the order disposing of a postdecision tolling motion is also independently appealable. The

rule merely dictates the time to appeal the underlying appealable order or judgment being

challenged.

When appellant filed appellant’s JMOL motion, the district court had not entered an

appealable judgment adopting the jury’s verdict and there was thus no appeal period to toll.

3
 01-CV-19-1198 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
4/4/2023

Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01, subd. 2, therefore does not apply here. And appellant does

not point to any authority that allows an immediate appeal from an order denying a motion

for JMOL. The district court’s January 12, 2023 order denying appellant’s JMOL motion

is not independently appealable. Appellant therefore cannot seek review of that order in

appeal A23-0374. Dismissal of the part of appeal A23-0374 seeking review of the JMOL

order is appropriate.

2.

In appeal A23-0484, appellant seeks review of the March 17, 2023 judgment and

the January 12, 2023 order denying appellant’s JMOL motion. In the statement of the case

for appeal A23-0484, appellant requests that this court consolidate appeal A23-0374 with

appeal A23-0484.

An appeal may be taken from a final judgment. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03(a).

On appeal from a judgment, this court may review any order involving the merits or

affecting the judgment. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.04. Because appeal A23-0484 is taken

from the March 17, 2023 judgment, this court has jurisdiction over that appeal under Minn.

R. Civ. App. P. 103.03(a). And because the January 12, 2023 order denying appellant’s

JMOL motion affected the March 17, 2023 judgment, it is within the scope of review of

appeal A23-0484.

Related appeals from the same actions may be consolidated by the appellate court’s

order on its own motion or upon motion of a party. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.02, subd. 3.

Because the January 12, 2023 order denying appellant’s new-trial motion and the January

4
 01-CV-19-1198 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
4/4/2023

12, 2023 order denying appellant’s JMOL motion involve related issues and appellant can

seek review of the JMOL order in appeal A23-0484, consolidation of appeals A23-0374

and A23-0484 is warranted in the interests of judicial economy.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The part of appeal A23-0374 seeking review of the January 12, 2023 order

denying appellant’s JMOL motion is dismissed.

2. Appeals A23-0374 and A23-0484 are consolidated. Appellant may seek

review of the January 12, 2023 order denying appellant’s new-trial motion and the January

12, 2023 order denying appellant’s JMOL motion in the consolidated appeals.

3. Appellant shall serve and file a single brief and addendum addressing both

appeals within 30 days after delivery of the transcript. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 131.01,

subd. 1.

4. The clerk of the appellate courts shall provide copies of this order to the

Honorable David F. Hermerding, counsel of record, and the district court administrator.

Dated: April 4, 2023

BY THE COURT

_________________________________
Lucinda E. Jesson
Presiding Judge