Roehrs v. Walstrom

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota May 9, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Steven Roehrs, Case No.: 0:23-cv-01885-SRN-DLM

Plaintiff,
ORDER EXTENDING THE COURT’S
v. STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

Sandra Walstrom, Ervin Abraham, Janet
Tharp, and Garry Walstrom,

Defendants.

Kristina Kaluza and Mickey L. Stevens, Dykema Gossett PLLC, 4000 Wells Fargo
Center. 90 South 7th St, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Plaintiff

Bartley S. Messick and Bethany J. Rubin. Messick Law, PLLC, 7595 Currell Blvd, Ste
251444, Woodbury, MN 55125, for Defendants Sandra and Garry Walstrom

Charles K Maier, Lathrop GPM LLP, 80 S 8th St, Ste 3100 IDS Center, Minneapolis,
MN 55402, for Defendant Ervin Abraham

J. Robert Keena and Neven Selimovic, Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, 8050 W 78th St,
Edina, MN 55439, for Defendant Janet Tharp

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on the Court’s previous Order Denying Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss and Granting Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings [Doc. No. 48].
Pursuant to that Order, the Court EXTENDS its stay of these proceedings until the Waseca
County District Court has made findings and clarified its order pursuant to the Minnesota
Court of Appeals’ decision in In the Matter of the Ronald E. Roehrs Trust Dated August 9,
1999, A23-1248.
I. BACKGROUND
The factual background and procedural history of this case is discussed in this
Court’s previous orders. In brief, this dispute concerns control and management of family

farmland. In a Minnesota state court action beginning on February 15, 2023, Michael
Roehrs1—brother of Plaintiff Steven Roehrs and brother, stepbrother, and brother-in-law
to the Defendants in this case—sought various relief relating to the administration of the
Ronald E. Roehrs Trust (the “Trust”), which holds the family’s farmland. (In the Matter
of the Ronald E. Roehrs Trust dated August 9, 1999, No. 81-CV-23-104 (Waseca Cnty.

2023, Pet., Doc. No. 2) (the “State Court Action”).) On July 11, 2023, the Waseca County
District Court confirmed Defendant Janet Tharp’s appointment as Trustee of the Trust, and
ordered entry of judgment. (Selimovic Aff. [Doc. No. 19], Ex. A (July 11, 2023 Order).)
On August 22, 2023, Michael appealed the Waseca County District Court’s decision
to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. See In the Matter of the Ronald E. Roehrs Trust dated

August 9, 1999, No. A23-1248 (Mn. Ct. App. 2023). Michael’s appeal argues that the
Waseca County District Court Judge erred by issuing a permanent order allegedly without
requiring Tharp to abide by state procedural rules, without providing Michael an
opportunity to oppose the procedural and substantive aspects of the entry of the order, and
without Michael having the opportunity to respond to the order, conduct discovery or

otherwise litigate the merits of his claim. (Id.)

1 While the Court typically refers to the parties by their last name, where more than
one party shares the same name, the Court will refer to them by their first name.
Meanwhile, on June 21, 2023, Steven Roehrs filed a complaint in the District of
Minnesota, alleging that he is the rightful successor trustee of the Trust, and that due to

misconduct by his stepmother and previous trustee Marvel E. Roehrs, as well as several of
his siblings by birth and marriage (the Defendants), he has been wrongfully deprived of
this role. (See Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶ 44.) He seeks a declaratory judgment that Marvel
is unable to serve as trustee of the Trust, that a beneficiary vote naming Defendant Janet
Tharp as successor trustee was invalid, and that he should be appointed trustee of the Trust.
He also seeks disgorgement of certain funds, access to Trust records and a full accounting,

and costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees in connection with this litigation. (Compl. ¶¶ 45-
126.)
On July 18, 2023, Defendants Sandra and Garry Walstrom filed a motion to dismiss
the Complaint, or in the alternative to grant a stay [Doc. No. 22]. On January 2, 2024, this
Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, but granted their motion for a stay of

proceedings until the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a decision on the appeal before it
in the State Court Action. The Court found that “the interests of both judicial economy and
justice are best served by allowing the current appeal in the State Court Action to resolve
before this action proceeds further.” See Roehrs v. Walstrom, Case No. 0:23-cv-01885-
SRN-DLM,

2024 WL 22089

 at *7 (D. Minn. Jan. 2, 2024).                     

    On April 30, 2024, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled on Michael’s appeal. In 
In the Matter of the Ronald E. Roehrs Trust Dated August 9, 1999, the Minnesota Court of 
Appeals held that “because we cannot discern the bases for the district court's rulings, we 
remand for the district court to make findings and clarify its order. Whether to reopen the 
record shall be discretionary with the district court.”  A23-1248,

2024 WL 1986080

 at *2 
(Mn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2024).                                             

    On May 2, 2024, Plaintiff and Defendants submitted a joint status update to the 
Court, providing the Court with a copy of the Minnesota Court of Appeals’ decision [Doc. 
No. 50].  On May 8, 2024, Steven provided a letter informing the Court that should the 
Court lift its stay of this litigation, he would seek to file a motion for leave to amend the 
Complaint to allege additional facts, name additional defendants, and add a new count 
seeking declaratory judgment [Doc. No. 51].                               

II.  DISCUSSION                                                           
    A.   Legal Standard                                                  
    A district court has the power to stay proceedings when facing concurrent state and 
federal litigation as part of its inherent power to control its docket. See Landis v. North 
American Co.,

299 U.S. 248, 254-55

 (1936); see also Cottrell v. Duke,

737 F.3d 1238, 1249

 
(8th Cir. 2013) (citing Lunde v. Helms,

898 F.2d 1343, 1345

 (8th Cir. 1990)).  District courts 

have this inherent authority to temporarily stay cases as part of their power “to control the 
disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 
counsel, and for litigants.”  Landis,

299 U.S. at 254

.  “How this can best be done calls for 
the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even 
balance.”

Id. at 254-55

The Court finds that continuing its temporary stay of these proceedings serves the
interests of both judicial economy and justice. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has
remanded the State Court Action for the district court to make findings and clarify its order.
Continuation of the temporary stay will allow the Waseca County District Court to possibly
resolve some or all of the substantive issues before this Court. As such, the Court will

extend the temporary stay until the Waseca County District Court issues a decision making
findings and clarifying its order in the State Court Action. At that time and considering
the district court’s decision, the Court will re-evaluate whether to extend the stay, hear
Steven’s motion for leave to amend the Complaint, or otherwise proceed with this
litigation.

III. ORDER
Based on the submissions and the entire file and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to the Court’s Order Denying Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss and Granting Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings [Doc. No. 48], the stay
of proceedings is EXTENDED.

Dated: May 9, 2024 s/ Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge