Roehrs v. Walstrom

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota June 18, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

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

Plaintiff,
SECOND ORDER EXTENDING THE
v. COURT’S 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 Orders Denying Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss and Granting Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings [Doc. No. 48]
and Extending the Court’s Stay of Proceedings [Doc. No. 52]. Pursuant to those Orders,
the Court EXTENDS its stay of these proceedings until the Waseca County District Court
has issued an order following its stated intent to hold a review hearing, and the resolution
of any related appeals to the Minnesota Court of Appeals and Minnesota Supreme Court.
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, Judge Carol M.
Hanks of 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).
Meanwhile, on June 21, 2023, Steven Roehrs filed a complaint in the District of
Minnesota. (See Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶ 44.) 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

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.
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].
On May 9, 2024, the Court issued an order extending the stay of proceedings [Doc.

No. 52] (“First Extension Order”). The Court found that “continuing its temporary stay of
these proceedings serves the interests of both judicial economy and justice[, as t]he
Minnesota Court of Appeals has remanded the State Court Action for the district court to
make findings and clarify its order.” (Id. at 4.)
On June 12, 2024, the Waseca County District Court issued an order on remand
from the Minnesota Court of Appeals. (See Pl’s Ltr. [Doc. No. 53], Attachment 1.) Judge

Hanks wrote that “it appears to this Court that the Court of Appeals has misinterpreted the
issue for appeal and, thus, this Court issues this order to clarify the issue(s).” (Id. at 1.)
Judge Hanks stated that the Court had believed that the July 11 Order was uncontested and
had therefore signed it without a hearing. (Id. at 1-2.) Judge Hanks then ordered the
scheduling of a review hearing, and stated that “[i]f any party wishes the Court to consider
an issue, they must timely file with the Court a proper motion and serve all parties to this

action so all parties have an opportunity to be heard by the Court.” (Id. at 2.)
On June 17, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a letter to the Court, providing the Court with
a copy of the Waseca County District Court’s decision, and seeking the Court’s guidance
concerning whether to file a Motion to Lift the Stay. (Pl’s Ltr.)
II. DISCUSSION

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 has substantial discretion to weigh these factors based 
on  the  unique  circumstances  of  the  case  before  it  and  to  decide  whether  a  stay  is 
appropriate.” Cent. States Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Lakeville Transp. Inc., Case 

No. 18-cv-1863-SRN-KMM,

2021 WL 1661239

, at *1 (D. Minn. Apr. 28, 2021).
The Court finds that continuing its temporary stay of these proceedings still serves
the interests of both judicial economy and justice. In its April 30 order, the Minnesota
Court of Appeals remanded the State Court Action for the district court to make findings
and clarify its order. The Waseca County District Court has scheduled a review hearing to
address any issues the parties may raise in this matter and will address them in the order

that follows the hearing, subject to possible further appeals. Until such appeals are
resolved, the temporary stay will remain in effect and allow the Waseca County District
Court—as ordered by the Minnesota Court of Appeals—to address some or all of the
substantive issues before this Court.
The parties must keep the Court apprised of any orders issued by the Waseca County

District Court and any appeals that may follow those orders. At that time, the Court will
re-evaluate whether to extend the stay, hear Steven’s previous 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 Orders Denying Defendants’ Motion

to Dismiss and Granting Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings [Doc. No. 48] and
Extending the Court’s Stay of Proceedings [Doc. No. 52], the stay of proceedings is
EXTENDED.

Dated: June 18, 2024 s/ Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge