C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Respondent, v. Robert A. Martin, Co-Appellant. (2014)

ORDER

BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

This appeal, filed September 23, 2013, is taken from a district court order denying appellants' motions to dismiss, for lack of personal jurisdiction, claims asserted against them by respondent C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. Briefing is complete and oral argument has been scheduled for March 26, 2014. Appellants Louis J. Amo, Jr., M. Sean Fernandez, Gregory W. Ritter, Jacob K. Schnell, and Timothy V. Thomas, and co-appellant Robert A. Martin (together appellants), seek review of a district court order denying their motions for a stay of discovery pending appeal.

Filing an appeal does not automatically result in a stay of enforcement. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 108.01, subd. 1. A party seeking a stay must make a motion for that relief in the district court. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 108.02, subd. 1. When ruling on a motion for a stay pending appeal, the appellant's interest in preserving the status quo so the appellant can obtain effective relief on appeal (if appellant prevails) must be balanced against the interests of the public and the interests of the respondent in enforcing the existing decision. DRJ, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 741 N.W.2d 141, 144 (Minn. App. 2007). This court can review “the trial court's determinations as to whether a stay is appropriate, the terms of any stay and the form and amount of security pending appeal,” if a party makes a motion in the pending appeal. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 108.02, subd. 6. Generally, an appellate court will not alter a district court's decision regarding a stay pending appeal absent an abuse of discretion. State by Clark v. Robnan, Inc., 259 Minn. 88, 90, 107 N.W.2d 51, 53 (1960); DRJ, 741 N.W.2d at 144.

We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying appellants' motions to stay discovery. The right to immediately appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction stems from our supreme court's judgment that a defendant who is not subject to the jurisdiction of this state should not be “compelled ․ to take up the burden of litigation in this state.” Hunt v. Nevada State Bank, 285 Minn. 77, 89, 172 N.W.2d 292, 300 (Minn. 1969). Allowing respondents to obtain discovery from appellants during the pendency of the appeal not only would defeat the purpose of allowing an immediate appeal, but would cause irreparable injury to appellants' asserted rights to avoid defending litigation in this state. Accordingly, we grant appellants' motions to stay discovery pending the disposition of this appeal. The district court has identified some legitimate concerns about the potential for duplicative discovery should a stay be granted. Nothing in this order shall preclude the district court from granting a broader stay or other relief that it determines necessary to promote judicial efficiency.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The motions for a stay are granted.

BY THE COURT

Edward J. Cleary Chief Judge