Opinion
A20-1365
05-20-2021
Scott H. Lansing, Appellant, v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Respondent, Wells Fargo Board of Directors, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OPINION
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CV-18-19611 Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Reyes, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In November 2009, appellant Scott Lansing defaulted on his residential mortgage. The mortgage holder, respondent Wells Fargo Bank, NA, initiated foreclosure proceedings. The district court granted summary judgment to Wells Fargo in March 2014. Lansing appealed and argued for the first time that Wells Fargo violated Minn. Stat. § 582.043 (2020) by continuing with foreclosure proceedings after he submitted a loan-modification application in November 2013. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lansing, No. A14-0868, 2015 WL 506655, at *2-3 (Minn. App. Feb. 9, 2015). We determined that Lansing forfeited the argument by not raising it in the district court, and that the argument lacked merit because the record contained no supporting evidence. Id. at *3.
2. In August 2015, Lansing sued Wells Fargo, repeating his argument that Wells Fargo violated Minn. Stat. § 582.043. Wells Fargo removed the case to federal court, which ruled that the claim was barred by res judicata because it could have been raised during the foreclosure proceeding, and was raised and rejected on appeal to this court. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Lansing v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 894 F.3d 967, 971-72 (8th Cir. 2018).
3. In December 2018, Lansing filed this action against Wells Fargo, asserting breach-of-contract and fraud claims and repeating his Minn. Stat. § 582.043 claim. After rule 12 dismissal of the other two claims, see Lansing v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. A19-1142, 2020 WL 1671687, at *4-5 (Minn. App. Apr. 6, 2020), Wells Fargo moved for summary judgment, arguing that res judicata bars Lansing's Minn. Stat. § 582.043 claim. After the parties submitted written arguments, the district court granted summary judgment, reasoning that the judgment entered in the 2015 action bars the claim. Lansing appeals.
4. Lansing first argues that the district court abused its discretion by not requiring Wells Fargo to answer discovery. See Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 781 N.W.2d 36, 45 (Minn. App. 2010) (stating that we review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue a summary-judgment motion for discovery). A party opposing summary judgment on this basis must submit an affidavit showing "that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition" of summary judgment. Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.04. Failure to submit such an affidavit "by itself, justifies the district court's decision to rule on the [summary-judgment] motion without granting relief." Molde, 781 N.W.2d at 45. And a district court does not abuse its discretion by denying a request for discovery that "would not assist the district court or change the result of the summary judgment motion." QBE Ins. Corp. v. Twin Homes of French Ridge Homeowners Ass'n, 778 N.W.2d 393, 400 (Minn. App. 2010). Lansing pointed to Wells Fargo's failure to provide discovery pertaining to the merits of his claim. But he did not submit an affidavit requesting specific discovery responses or explaining how the lack of discovery affected his ability to oppose Wells Fargo's motion. On this record, we discern no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying Lansing's discovery request.
5. Lansing next asserts that the district court erred by failing to hold an oral hearing. He contends the court's explanation that "[n]o oral argument was granted because there is a pandemic" was merely an "excuse," and that the failure to conduct at least a telephonic hearing deprived him of due process. We review de novo what process is required under procedural rules and the federal and state constitutions. Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 851 N.W.2d 598, 601 (Minn. 2014); Rew v. Bergstrom, 845 N.W.2d 764, 785 (Minn. 2014). The rules governing summary-judgment motions and dispositive motions generally refer to a "hearing," but neither expressly requires an oral hearing. Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.02; Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 115.03. Nor does due process. Each party must be afforded a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 348-49, 96 S. Ct. 893, 909 (1976). In the context of a summary-judgment motion, the opportunity to submit written arguments and affidavits "satisfies the parties' right to be heard." Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Cathey, 977 F.2d 447, 449 (8th Cir. 1992). The record confirms that the district court gave Lansing and Wells Fargo ample opportunity to submit both. Lansing did not take advantage of that opportunity, choosing to offer no written response to Wells Fargo's res judicata argument. And his complaint rings hollow because he does not identify any arguments he was prevented from making because the district court did not conduct an oral hearing. Lansing has not demonstrated that he was deprived of due process.
6. Finally, while Lansing offers no argument on the merits of the res judicata determination, we see no error in the district court's conclusion that res judicata bars Lansing's claim. See Hauschildt v. Beckingham, 686 N.W.2d 829, 840 (Minn. 2004) (stating that the application of res judicata is reviewed de novo). Res judicata prohibits parties from asserting claims that were actually litigated and claims "that could have been litigated." Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., P.L.L.P., 732 N.W.2d 209, 220 (Minn. 2007). It applies when "(1) the earlier claim involved the same set of factual circumstances; (2) the earlier claim involved the same parties or their privities; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits; [and] (4) the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter." Id. (quotation omitted). All four factors are present here. First, Lansing's 2015 federal court action asserted a claim under Minn. Stat. § 582.042 involving the same set of factual circumstances that are present here—Lansing's purported November 2013 loan-modification application. Second, the earlier claim involved Lansing and Wells Fargo. Third, the federal district court issued a final judgment on the merits, which the Eighth Circuit affirmed. And finally, Lansing had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim, he simply declined to assert it in a timely manner or identify any justification for failing to do so. See Lansing, 894 F.3d at 972 (noting that Lansing faced no procedural barriers, like a jurisdictional barrier or immunity, that prevented him from asserting the claim). On this record, the district court did not err by concluding that res judicata bars Lansing's Minn. Stat. § 582.043 claim.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's judgment is affirmed.
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.
Dated: 5/20/21
BY THE COURT
/s/_________
Judge Louise Dovre Bjorkman