Marion O’Neill, et al., Appellants,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A21-1033

Marion O’Neill, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Jim Schowalter, et al.,
Respondents.

Filed January 24, 2022
Affirmed
Connolly, Judge

Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-CV-20-5865

James V.F. Dickey, Douglas P. Seaton, Upper Midwest Law Center, Golden Valley,
Minnesota (for appellants)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Joseph Weiner, Jason Marisam, Assistant Attorney s
General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondents)

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Smith,
John, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellants-state-legislators challenge the dismissal of their petition for a writ of quo
warranto. In their petition, appellants argued that respondents Minnesota Management and

 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
Budget (MMB) and its commissioner lack authority to implement certain public -sector
collective-bargaining agreements (CBAs) because the agreements were not properly
ratified by both houses of the legislature. Because we conclude that the case is moot, we
affirm.
FACTS
In 2020, the former commissioner of MMB, Myron Frans, presented to the
legislature for ratification 11 CBAs which had been negotiated between the state and
numerous public-sector labor unions. 1 The CBAs generally provided for a cost -of-living
increase of 2.5% for all covered employees for the second year of the contract term (2020-
2021), to take effect in July 2020. While 2.5% was the baseline increase, approximately
half of the covered employees were entitled to pay increases other than 2.5%.
On May 11, 2020, the Minnesota House of Representatives ratified the CBAs by
passing a bill, H.F. 2768. Appellant Marion O’Neill, a member of the house, voted against
ratification but was outvoted by the majority. The Minnesota Senate then received
H.F. 2768 but tabled the bill. Instead, the senate amended a different bill, H.F. 2796, to
address the CBAs. On May 16, 2020, appellant-senator Mark Koran moved to amend

1 The CBAs reflected negotiated agreements with the following unions: American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 5; Minnesota Association
of Professional Employees; American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees, Unit 225, Radio Communications Operators; Middle Management
Association; Minnesota State University Association of Administrative and Service
Faculty; Inter Faculty Organization; American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees, Unit 8, Corrections Officers; State Residential Schools Education Association;
Minnesota State College Faculty; Minnesota Government Engineers Council; and
Minnesota Nurses Association.
H.F. 2796 to make the second year of pay increases for the covered employees contingent
on a positive budget forecast of the state’s general-fund revenues. The senate subsequently
passed H.F. 2796 with the Koran amendment. Koran voted in favor of the bill. Section 1
of the final version of H.F. 2796 expressly “ratified” each of the 11 CBAs “ [e]xcept as
provided in section 2.” State of Minnesota, Journal of the Senate, 91st Sess. 7068-70 (May
15, 2020); State of Minnesota, Journal of the Senate, 91st Sess. 7243-45 (May 16, 2020).
Section 2, in turn, contained the Koran amendment and read as follows, in relevant part:
Sec. 2. Contingency.

The general increases, enhan cements to salary
schedules, and the supplement to the MnSCU Personnel Plan
for Administrators in section 1 are not ratified until the
commissioner of management and budget determines, based
on a forecast of general fund revenues and expenditures issued
before July 1, 2021, that there will be a positive unrestricted
general fund balance at the close of the biennium ending June
30, 2021 . . . .

State of Minnesota, Journal of the Senate , 91st Sess. 7246 (May 16, 2020 ) (emphasis
added).
On May 17, 2020, the legislature formally adjourned. The house never voted on
H.F. 2796, and the senate never voted on H.F. 2768. The legislature has not addressed the
CBAs in any subsequent special session.
Following ratification of H.F. 2768 by the house and H.F. 2796 by the senate,
Commissioner Frans announced that MMB would implement the terms of the CBAs in the
form in which they were submitted to the legislature. According to his statement , MMB
had determined, following a legal review, that “the Legislature does not have the authority
to unilaterally modify the agreements or plans” and that “the Senate chose a path that is
not outlined in law.” The statement expressed the commissioner’s position that “the legal
effect of the Legislature’s action is to ratify the agreements.”
Nearly seven months later, o n December 30, 2020, O’Neill and Koran filed a
petition for a writ of quo warranto or, in the alternative, a declaratory judgment. They
argued that respondents lacked authority to implement the CBAs because the CBAs were
not properly ratified by both houses of the legislature. Specifically, they asserted that the
house and senate were required by law to pass one unified bill to ratify the CBAs. Because
the house and senate passed separate bills that contained different language, appellants
argued that the legislature did not approve the CBAs in the manner required by state law.
Respondents moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the district court
lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and appellants failed to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. In an accompanying memorandum, respondents argued that appellants
lack standing and that the petition was moot, barred by the doctrine of lac hes, and failed
on its merits. Appellants later moved for a temporary injunction, requesting that the district
court enjoin present Commissioner Jim Schowalter from implementing the CBAs.
Respondents opposed that motion as well.
In July 2021, the district court issued a written order dismissing appellants’ petition
based on a determination that appellants lack standing. After dismissing appellants’
petition with prejudice, the district court determined that appellants’ temporary-injunction
motion was moot.
This appeal follows.
DECISION
A writ of quo warranto is a remedy designed to correct official actions that are not
authorized by law. Save Lake Calhoun v. Strommen, 943 N.W.2d 171, 174 (Minn. 2020).
The writ requires an official to show before a court the authority by which the official
exercised the challenged action. State ex rel. Sviggum v. Hanson , 732 N.W.2d 312, 318
(Minn. App. 2007). When reviewing a district court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss,
we apply a de novo standard. Cocchiarella v. Driggs, 884 N.W.2d 621, 624 (Minn. 2016).
We accept all facts contained in the complaint as true and grant all reasonable inferences
to the nonmoving party. Id. Under our de novo review, we may affirm dismissal on any
ground. See Katz v. Katz , 408 N.W.2d 835, 839 (Minn. 1987) (“[W]e will not re verse a
correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons.”).
Appellants contend that the district court erred by dismissing their quo warranto
petition, and they request that we reverse the district court’s denial of their temporary -
injunction motion. Respondents, in turn, argue that the district court properly dismissed
appellants’ petition for lack of standing, and they assert three additional bases for affirming
dismissal of the petition: the doctrine of laches, mootness, and failure to state a claim on
the merits. For the reasons set forth below, w e agree with respondents that this case is
moot.
The doctrine of mootness “demands appellate courts hear only live controversies,
and they may not issue advisory opinions.” Farm Bureau Mut . Ins. Co. v. Schwan , 687
N.W.2d 388, 391 (Minn. App. 2004). A case is moot if “a decision on the merits is no
longer necessary or an award of effective relief is no longer possible.” Dean v. City of
Winona, 868 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Minn. 2015). We conduct a mootness inquiry de novo. Id. at 4.
Appellants ask us to determine whether the legislature and respondents followed the
proper procedure for ratifying and implementing the CBAs. But a decision on the merits
in this case is no longer necessary because it is now clear that both the house and the senate
intended to approve the CBAs in the form in which they were submitted to the legislature
and later implemented by respondents. It is undisputed that the house voted to approve the
CBAs without condition. Determining whether the senate also intended to fully approve
the CBAs was initially complicated by its inclusion of the Koran amendment in H.F. 2796.
Specifically, the text of the senat e’s bill “ratified” each of the 11 CBAs but included a
contingency (in the Koran amendment) that the pay raises for 2020-2021 “are not ratified
until” the commissioner determines that there is a positive budget forecast of general-fund
revenues. State of Minnesota, Journal of the Senate, 91st Sess. 7243-46 (May 16, 2020).
But that positive-budget contingency was satisfied before appellants filed their petition for
a writ of quo warranto in district court on December 30, 2020 . Earlier that month, o n
December 3, 2020, MMB issued a press release showing a projected $636 million surplus
in the general fund for 2020-2021. Press Release, Minnesota Management & Budget, State
of Minnesota Releases November 2020 Budget & Economic Forecast (Dec. 3, 2020),
https://mn.gov/mmb/media/newsroom.jsp#/detail/appId/1/id/456903. Following the
determination that there was a positive budget forecast for 2020-2021, there was no longer
any doubt that the senate, along with the house, intended to fully ratify the CBAs and effect
the implementation of their terms, including the 2020 -2021 pay raises. Accordingly, a
decision on the merits was no longer necessary by the time appellants filed their petition.
This case is therefore moot.
Appellants do not address the mootness doctrine in their appellate brief and did not
file a reply brief . During oral argument, counsel for appellants conceded that the
commissioner had projected a positive general -fund budget for 2020 -2021 and that the
contingency contained in the Koran ame ndment had therefore been met. Counsel
nonetheless argued that the satisfaction of the positive-budget contingency does not render
this case moot because the Koran amendment was not approved by both houses of the
legislature and accordingly never became e ffective and binding. But th at argument
concerns the merits of appellants’ quo warranto petition—that is, whether the legislature
followed the proper procedure for approving the CBAs —not whether the case is moot .
Reaching the merits of that petition is u nnecessary given that the intent of the house and
senate to ratify all aspects of the CBAs is now clear and the contingency has been met.
Accordingly, we conclude that this case is moot, and we therefore need not reach
the parties’ additional arguments on appeal. We affirm the district court’s decision to
dismiss appellants’ petition for a writ of quo warranto and to deny appellants’ motion for
a temporary injunction.
Affirmed.