S'TAI'E OF MINNIISOTA

oppe?ffi|?%Bunr.s
,;AN 2

2Ct4

IN SUPREME COURT At4-0029

FILED

ln re Doug Mann, t.inda Mann. David Tilsen

Doug Mann. Linda Mann. David Tilscn. Petitioners.
vs.

.lirn Schorvalter. Cornrnissioner of Minncsota Managcrnent and Budget.

Respondent.

ORDER
PER CURIAM.

On Januarl' 10.2014. petitioners Doug Mann. Linda Mann, and David Tilsen t'iled

a petition fttr a r"'rit of prohibition rvith this court. requesting an order that prohibits
respondent Jirn Schou'alter. Cornmissioner of Minnesota Management and Bud,qet. tiorn

procecding rvith the sale and issuance

of certain appropriation

bonds

to pav fbr the

petitioners
a

construction of a stadiurn. as authorizedby Minn. Stat. S 164.965

(20t2).

contcud that the local salcs tax revenucs dedicated by thc city o[ Minneapolis to rcpay

portion of those bonds violates Articlc X, Section

t of the Minnesota Constitution.

See

Mirrn. Stat. g 473J.1 1, subd.4(b) (2012) ("'l'he city'of Minncapolis share shall be limitcd

to no rnorc than a S 150.000.000 contribution lor construction"); see also Minn.

Stat.

dcposit to thc general tund" citl, tax revcnues necessar)' to meet the city's contribution stadiurn financing). Respondent Schou,alter opposes the petition. arguing that

tct

it is barred by' the

doctrinc of' laches. that thc court lacks .jurisdiction ovcr the petition and the relicf
requestcd. and that the lcgislation authorizing the City's contribution

to the stadiurn

crtnstruction costs through the usc of locaI sales tax rcvenues is constitutional.

l'he Minnesota Sports Iracilitics Authoritl'. u,hich has a contractual

agrecment

u'ith respondcnt Schou'alter fbr the usc ol'the bond procceds. moved to intervene and to
rcquire the petitioncrs to post a suretl, bond in the amount of $49.7 rnillion. pursuant to

Minn. Stat. $ 562.02 (2012). On Januar), 14. 2014, u'c issued an ordcr thal. granted thc
Sports Facilities Authoritl,'s motion

to

intcr'r'ene, and dirccted the partics

to lile

rnernoranda that addressed rvhether this court's original .iurisdiction is propcrly' invoked

bv thc pctition and u'hethcr thc pctitioners can obtain the relief thc1, sought through
pctition lbr a rvrit ol'prohibition. On Januarv 16. u'e received
Lhe

parties' memoranda.

Itely'ing on thc lcgislative provision that conl'ers original.iurisdiction on this court

to validate thc stadiurll appropriation bonds. petitioners arBuc that thcy' properly' invoked
this court's.jurisdiction as soon as respondent announced. on.[anuarr'8.2014. details on

the salc and issuancc of those bonds.

&e Minn. Stat. Q 16n.965. subd. l0(c)

("'l'hc

MinnesoLa Suprcrne Court shall havc original .iurisdiction to detennine the validation

of

appropriation bonds and all matLers connccted thereu'ith."). Petitioners acknon'ledge thaL

section 16A.965 authorizes respondent to decide rvhethcr or not to initiate validation

proceedings belbre this court. See Minn. Stat.8 164.965. subd. l0(a) ("Appropriation

bonds issucd under this section mat' be validatcd

in the

rnanner providcd by' this

subdivision.") (ernphasis added). Becausc the cornrnissioner

did not initiate bond

validation procccdings. rcspondcnt and inten,enor contcnd that this courL's original
.jurisdiction \\'as not propcrlf invokcd b1'thc pctition lbr a uriL of'prohibition.

To the extent the petition asserts a claim under Minn. Stat. $ 164.965. this court
has original .iurisdiction only to "determine the validation of appropriation bonds and all

matters connected therervith.^' Id.. subd.

l0(c). '['he statute does not confer original

.jurisdiction on thc court to rcsolve all challengcs to lcgislation authorizing the use of appropriation bonds. Furthcr. thc partics agrcc that the specific proceeding over rvhich this court has original jurisdicl.ion. a bond validation proceeding. has not been initiated.
.See

Minn. Stat. Q 16A.965. subd. l0(d)-(e) ("tAl cornplaint shalI be filed b1,the

cornrnissioncr"

uith this court to dcterrnine the "cornrnissioncr's

authorit)'

to

issuc

appropriaLit-rn bonds" and belbre doing so. "Lhe cornrnissioner shall take action providing

[irr the issuancc" of thc bonds). Accordingly'. to the extent thc petitioners seek relief

under Minn. Stat.

jurisdiction.

16,4..965, rve

hold that such a clairn falls outside our original

In addition to citing Minn. Stat. $ 16A.965, petitioners rely on our authority to

issue writs and argue that they are entitled
$ 480.04

to a rvrit of prohibition.

See Minn. Stat.

(2012) (authorizing this court to "issue . . . rvrits of . . . prohibition"). To the

a

extent the petition relies on this court's original .iurisdiction over u,rits ol- prohibition,

rvrit of prohibition rnav not issue because the petitioners have not demonstrated thatthey'

do not have an adequate rernedy at

law.

We have long recognized that "[a]s

prerequisite to the issuance of a writ of prohibition. the party seeking it must show that he

will sutter an injury lbr rvhich there is no adequate rernedy at law." Craigmile
Sorenson.24l Minn. 222, 231. 62 N.W.2d 846.852 (1954). Petitioners argue that they, have no adcquate legal rcrnedy,

v.

tbr thc

allcged

constitutional violation because the cornmissioner intends to proceed u'ith the sale and
issuance

of thc appropriation

bonds u,ithout using the statutorv validation proceeding.

matters

But the district courts havc jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to

involving taxation. Minn. Stat. $ 484.01. subd. l(1) (2012); see also lMalker v. Zuehlke,
642 N.W.2d 745,747 (Minn. 2002) (reviewing procedural history in district court and court of appeals for clairn under Minn. Const. art. X, $ 1). Petitioners filed an action in district court and they have a rnattcr pending in the Minnesota Court ot'Appeals. Finally.

the absence o[' bond validation proceedings under Minn. Stat.

16,{.965 does not

dcmonstrate that petitioners lack an adequate remedy

at larv sufficient to invoke this

court's original jurisdiction. Based on this record. we hold that petitioners have not
demonstrated that thel' do not have an adequate rernedy at lau'.r Based on the foregoing analysis. we conclude that the petition must be disrnissed. Based upon all the flles. records. and proceedings herein.

IT IS FIIIREBY ORDERED THAI':

1.

1'hc petition fbr a writ of prohibition to restrain respondent Jirn Schowaltcr.

Cornrnissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget. from proceeding w'ith the sale and
issuance of ccrtain stadiurn appropriation bonds pursuant to Minn. Stat. $ 164.965 (2012)

bc. and the sarne is. dismissed.

2.

'['hc rnotion ol' the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority to require thc

posting of a surety bond pursuant to Minn. Stat. $ 562.02 (2012) be. and the same is.
denied as moot.

Dated: January 2I, 2014

PAGE. J.. took no part in the considcration or decision of this case.

In using the phrase "adequate rernedy at law," lve do not imply that petitioners ' Itave stated, or could state in another procceding, a clairn upon which rclief could be granted.