Opinion
A24-0333
08-16-2024
Robert Webber, Relator, v. Carver County, Respondent.
Office of Administrative Hearings File No. 21-0305-39726
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Smith, John, Judge.[*]
ORDER OPINION
Renee L. Worke, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. On December 22, 2023, relator Robert Webber filed an administrative complaint with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The complaint asserted that in January 2020, respondent Carver County (the county) violated the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA), see Minn. Stat. §§ 13.01-.95 (2022), when it failed to provide him with a Tennessen warning as part of a child-protection assessment.
2. The administrative-law judge (ALJ) dismissed the complaint. In so doing, the ALJ determined that there existed four grounds supporting a dismissal: (1) the limitations period had run, (2) the claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, (3) the claim failed on the merits, and (4) the matter was not properly before the ALJ. Webber petitioned the chief ALJ for reconsideration. The chief ALJ denied the petition. Webber filed a petition for a writ of certiorari.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the complaint was timely filed. Webber does not challenge any other aspect of the ALJ's decision.
3. Whether a court erred in its application of the law regarding "the accrual of the cause of action and the running of the statute of limitations" is reviewed de novo. Franklin v. Evans, 992 N.W.2d 379, 384 (Minn. 2023) (quotation omitted). "The statute of limitations begins to run on a claim when the cause of action accrues. A cause of action accrues when all of the elements of the action have occurred," and the complaint would survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Park Nicollet Clinic v. Hamann, 808 N.W.2d 828, 832 (Minn. 2011) (quotation and citation omitted).
4. Under the MGDPA, when the government requests private or confidential data concerning an individual, it must give the individual a Tennessen warning. Minn. Stat. § 13.04, subd. 2. A valid Tennessen warning requires the government to inform the individual: (1) of "the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting government entity"; (2) "whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data"; (3) of "any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply [the requested] data"; and (4) of "the identity of other persons or entities authorized by . . . law to receive the data." Id.
5. For an administrative complaint asserting a violation of the MGDPA to be considered timely, it generally "must be filed with the [OAH] within two years after the occurrence of the act or failure to act that is the subject of the complaint." Minn. Stat. § 13.085, subd. 2(b).
6. Webber does not dispute that the MGDPA violation occurred in January 2020. For Webber's complaint to be considered timely under the MGDPA, it would have to be filed before February 2022. See id. Webber filed the complaint in December 2023- after the limitations period had run. See id. Webber, however, argues that because the conduct is ongoing, an exception to the two-year limitations period applies.
7. The MGDPA provides an exception to the two-year limitations period: "if the act or failure to act involves concealment or misrepresentation by the government entity that could not be discovered during that period." Id.; see Minn. Stat. § 645.19 (2022) ("Exceptions expressed in a law shall be construed to exclude all others."); see also In re Welfare of Child of J.B., 782 N.W.2d 535, 543 (Minn. 2010) (applying "the canon of statutory construction 'expressio unius est exclusion alterius'-that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.").
8. Webber does not argue that the county concealed its conduct or that it made misrepresentations. Further, Webber fails to cite to any relevant statute or caselaw in support of his "ongoing-harm" argument tolling the limitations period. See State Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., 558 N.W.2d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997) (declining to address issues that are inadequately briefed); see also Midway Ctr. Assocs. v. Midway Ctr., Inc., 237 N.W.2d 76, 78 (Minn. 1975) (stating that error is not presumed on appeal). Therefore, the ALJ did not err when it dismissed the complaint as time-barred as the limitations period to assert an MGDPA violation with OAH had run.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The ALJ's order 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.
[*] Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.