Opinion
A23-0756
02-29-2024
Bruce Roberts Rowell, Appellant, v. In Motion Property Management, Respondent.
Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-HG-CV-23-125
Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Smith, Tracy M., Judge; and Bratvold, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Tracy M. Smith, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In this rent-escrow action under Minnesota Statutes section 504B.385 (2022), self-represented appellant-tenant Bruce Roberts Rowell challenges the district court's dismissal with prejudice of his action due to Rowell's failure to appear at a remote trial held via Zoom, an online video-conferencing platform.
2. Rowell leased a residential unit in St. Paul from respondent-landlord In Motion Property Management. In January 2023, Rowell filed an affidavit of rent escrow listing problems with his unit regarding (1) the "water shut-off valves under [the] kitchen sink" and (2) all the windows. According to the affidavit, Rowell had sent In Motion a request to repair the kitchen sink and the windows in November 2022.
3. The district court held a remote initial hearing via Zoom. At the hearing, the parties requested a court trial. The district court scheduled a remote court trial via Zoom for March 6, 2023.
4. Rowell did not appear at the remote trial. Based on Rowell's failure to appear, the district court dismissed Rowell's action with prejudice. Rowell requested a new trial. The district court denied the request.
5. Rowell appeals. In his informal brief, Rowell argues that the district court erred by (1) dismissing his action for nonappearance because he tried to log into the Zoom hearing but was unsuccessful despite making two calls to the district court and because the referee was biased and (2) denying his request for a new trial.
6. A hearing on a tenant's rent-escrow action is conducted by the district court without a jury. Minn. Stat. § 504B.385, subd. 6. If the court finds that a violation exists, the court may grant various forms of discretionary relief. Minn. Stat. §§ 504B.385, subd. 9(a), .425 (incorporated into section 504B.385, subd. 9(a)(1)) (2022).
7. Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02 governs involuntary dismissal of an action. Under rule 41.02, "[t]he court may upon its own initiative, or upon motion of a party, and upon such notice as it may prescribe, dismiss an action or claim for failure to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of the court." Minn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(a). An involuntary dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits. Id. (c). A plaintiff's failure to appear for trial may justify a dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See, e.g., O'Neil v. Kelly, 239 N.W.2d 231, 232 (Minn. 1976); Johnson v. Hunter, 435 N.W.2d 821, 823 (Minn.App. 1989), rev'd in part on other grounds, 447 N.W.2d 871 (Minn. 1989).
8. An appellate court reviews a district court's dismissal under rule 41.02 for an abuse of discretion. Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc., 656 N.W.2d 389, 395 (Minn. 2003). A district court abuses its discretion if its findings of fact are unsupported by the record, if it improperly applies the law, or if it resolves the question in a manner that is contrary to logic and the facts on record. Woolsey v. Woolsey, 975 N.W.2d 502, 506 (Minn. 2022).
9. Rowell appears to argue that he did not fail to appear for trial because he was in the Zoom waiting room as directed but was never admitted. There is no evidence in the record showing that Rowell had joined the Zoom session at the time of trial. The record demonstrates only that, when the district court requested that the parties enter their appearances at the beginning of the trial, Rowell did not enter an appearance and no one else entered an appearance on his behalf. On this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Rowell's action for nonappearance because Rowell failed to appear for trial.
As explained below, Rowell has moved this court to supplement the record to include documents that he obtained after judgment was entered against him-a motion that we deny. We note that Rowell has not filed a motion with the district court to vacate the judgment under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 on the basis of these records.
10. Rowell also asserts that the referee was "bias[ed]" against him. Specifically, Rowell alleges that, at the initial hearing, the referee stated that, "unless [Rowell] requested a trial, [the referee] would find in favor of [In Motion]." The record does not contain a transcript of the initial hearing to confirm whether the referee made that statement. An appellant has the burden to provide an adequate record on appeal. Noltimier v. Noltimier, 157 N.W.2d 530, 531 (Minn. 1968). Because Rowell failed to provide a transcript of the initial hearing, we cannot determine from the record the existence of any judicial bias at that hearing.
11. In any event, even if the referee made the alleged statement, Rowell fails to show that, by making the statement, the referee was biased against him. In his affidavit of rent escrow, Rowell alleged two violations regarding his unit. Following the initial hearing on Rowell's allegations, the district court noted that the parties had not "reach[ed] a resolution" and that they had "requested a court trial." Because there were issues of fact as to whether the alleged violations existed, the matter needed to proceed to a court trial. See Minn. Stat. § 504B.385; see also NY Props., LLC v Schuette, 977 N.W.2d 862, 865-66 (Minn.App. 2022) (recognizing, in an eviction action, that fact issues must be resolved by a factfinder), rev. dismissed (Minn. Aug. 24, 2022). The district court could not have entered judgment for Rowell at the initial hearing because it could not have found that a violation existed based on Rowell's allegations. See Minn. Stat. § 504B.385, subd. 9(a) (providing for entry of judgment "[u]pon finding that a violation exists"). Rowell's allegation of judicial bias fails.
12. Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 59.01 establishes the grounds for a new trial. "[Appellate courts] review a district court's decision to grant or deny a new trial for an abuse of discretion." Christie v. Est. of Christie, 911 N.W.2d 833, 838 (Minn. 2018).
13. Rowell's request for a new trial did not specify the grounds on which he sought a new trial. In his request, Rowell asserted that, on the day of trial, he "entered the Zoom . . . waiting room" but was not admitted into the "meeting," that he called the court "a few minutes" later and an administrator offered to send the district court clerk a message, and that he waited almost an hour to be admitted before signing off. Because Rowell's request for a new trial did not allege specific grounds under rule 59.01, and because the district court was not compelled to accept Rowell's allegation that he tried to log into the Zoom hearing, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Rowell's request for a new trial.
14. In December 2023, Rowell filed two motions with this court to supplement the record. First, Rowell filed a motion to supplement the record with information about his posttrial efforts to obtain call logs for the day of trial. Rowell did not identify the call logs that he sought to include in the record; he merely provided documentation of his efforts to obtain the call logs from his telephone company. In his second motion, Rowell attached a recently produced call log from his telephone company purportedly showing that he made two calls to the district court approximately 36 and 117 minutes after the trial was scheduled to begin.
15. "The documents filed in the trial court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings, if any, shall constitute the record on appeal in all cases." Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.01. "An appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and may not consider matters not produced and received in evidence below." Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582-83 (Minn. 1988). The call log that Rowell seeks to include is not part of the record on appeal under rule 110.01 because it was not provided to the district court. We therefore deny Rowell's motions to supplement the record.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's judgment is affirmed; motions denied.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.