{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:minnctapp-a251075-2026-04-27","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:minnctapp-a251075-2026-04-27)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-18","fingerprint":"ewai:us:efda2f","proof":"sha256:e47e2491eefc752986effbe6f215752f0b6082f8b4dcbd918cc4997312e358e3","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:minnctapp-a251075-2026-04-27","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"STATE OF MINNESOTA","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"IN COURT OF APPEALS","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"A25-1075","paragraphs":["para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8"]},{"title":"Filed April 27, 2026","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Affirmed","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Harris, Judge","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Stearns County District Court","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"File No. 73-CV-24-9839","paragraphs":["para_14"]},{"title":"Minnesota (for appellant)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"John G. Westrick, Samuel A. Savage, Savage Westrick, PLLP, Bloomington, Minnesota","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(for respondents)","paragraphs":["para_18"]},{"title":"St. Paul, Minnesota (for intervenor attorney general)","paragraphs":["para_20"]},{"title":"Judge.∗","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"SYLLABUS","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"A statement in a report to a state licensing board that initiates an investigation","paragraphs":["para_24"]},{"title":"Minnesota Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), Minnesota Statutes","paragraphs":["para_26","para_27"]},{"title":"2","paragraphs":["para_29","para_30"]},{"title":"OPINION","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"HARRIS, Judge","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Appellant challenges a district court order granting respondents’ special motion for","paragraphs":["para_34","para_35"]},{"title":"Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02. First, we conclude that the district court properly granted","paragraphs":["para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47"]},{"title":"FACTS","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The following facts derive from the record before the district court on respondents’","paragraphs":["para_50"]},{"title":"3","paragraphs":["para_52","para_53","para_54"]},{"title":"Appellant Ashley Anderson1 is a licensed clinical social worker who has been","paragraphs":["para_56"]},{"title":"Adam Anderson, Arica Anderson, and Austin Anderson are Ashley’s siblings. Austin has","paragraphs":["para_58","para_59"]},{"title":"2024, the St. Cloud police arrested Austin on outstanding warrants and detained him at the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Stearns County Jail. At the request of the parties’ mother, Ann Anderson, Ashley called","paragraphs":["para_62"]},{"title":"Type I diabetes. Ashley conducted the call on speakerphone in the presence of Ann and","paragraphs":["para_64"]},{"title":"On October 1, 2024, Ashley received formal notice from the Minnesota Board of","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Social Work (the board) informing her that the board had initiated an investigation for","paragraphs":["para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70"]},{"title":"1 Because all parties share the same last name, we refer to the parties by first name","paragraphs":["para_72"]},{"title":"4","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"On Monday, September 16th, 2024, our [brother] was arrested","paragraphs":["para_75"]},{"title":"County, MN. We know this information was not made public","paragraphs":["para_77","para_78","para_79"]},{"title":"Stearns County Active Warrant List. We do know that Ashley","paragraphs":["para_81"]},{"title":"County jail in some capacity working nights a couple of times","paragraphs":["para_83"]},{"title":"Discovery during his stay in Benton County jail and it was","paragraphs":["para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90"]},{"title":"Anderson obtaining this information illegally, using her","paragraphs":["para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96"]},{"title":"In the past, Ashley has also used her position to gain access to","paragraphs":["para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104"]},{"title":"County to push the paperwork through the waiting queue to get","paragraphs":["para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109"]},{"title":"(mother was listed as legal guardian at the time). She has often","paragraphs":["para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114"]},{"title":"5","paragraphs":["para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124"]},{"title":"Ashley brought claims for defamation, defamation per se, and civil conspiracy","paragraphs":["para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132"]},{"title":"The district court concluded that respondents’ speech was protected under UPEPA","paragraphs":["para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137"]},{"title":"3 Ashley brought her defamation and defamation per se claims solely against Adam and","paragraphs":["para_139","para_140","para_141"]},{"title":"6","paragraphs":["para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148"]},{"title":"Ashley subsequently moved to vacate the district court’s order pursuant to rule","paragraphs":["para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153"]},{"title":"2017). The district court’s order declined to address Ashley’s rule 60.02 motion because","paragraphs":["para_155","para_156"]},{"title":"Ashley appealed, arguing that the district court erred in granting respondents’","paragraphs":["para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163"]},{"title":"April 21, 2025 order awarding respondents’ attorney fees . . . as premature.” The issue of","paragraphs":["para_165"]},{"title":"7","paragraphs":["para_167","para_168"]},{"title":"ISSUES","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"I. Did the district court err in granting respondents’ special motion for expedited relief","paragraphs":["para_171"]},{"title":"II. Is UPEPA unconstitutional as applied to Ashley?","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"III. Did the district court err in denying Ashley’s post-judgment motion?","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"ANALYSIS","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"I. The district court did not err in granting respondents’ special motion for","paragraphs":["para_176"]},{"title":"Before addressing Ashley’s specific arguments challenging the district court’s order","paragraphs":["para_178","para_179"]},{"title":"The Minnesota Legislature adopted UPEPA, a uniform anti-SLAPP (strategic","paragraphs":["para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186"]},{"title":"Work Practice Act—which regulates the profession of social work. Based upon our","paragraphs":["para_188","para_189","para_190"]},{"title":"Minnesota Statutes sections 554.01-.06 (2022), which the supreme court ruled","paragraphs":["para_192"]},{"title":"8","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Minn. Stat. § 554.09. If the moving party prevails on the motion, “the court shall award","paragraphs":["para_195","para_196"]},{"title":"We review a district court’s decision on a special motion for expedited relief de","paragraphs":["para_198","para_199"]},{"title":"First, a district court must determine whether UPEPA applies","paragraphs":["para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209"]},{"title":"A. Part One","paragraphs":["para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220"]},{"title":"9","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(2) communication on an issue under","paragraphs":["para_223","para_224"]},{"title":"(3) exercise of the right of freedom of speech or","paragraphs":["para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229"]},{"title":"The district court concluded that Adam’s speech fell under UPEPA because it was a","paragraphs":["para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238"]},{"title":"1. Communication in a Governmental Proceeding","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Ashley argues that the district court erred in determining that Adam’s speech was a","paragraphs":["para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244"]},{"title":"Marks v. Comm’r of Revenue, 875 N.W.2d 321, 324 (Minn. 2016). “[W]e give words and","paragraphs":["para_246"]},{"title":"10","paragraphs":["para_248"]},{"title":"Caremark Corp., 850 N.W.2d 682, 689 (Minn. 2014). If the statute is clear, we enforce its","paragraphs":["para_250","para_251","para_252"]},{"title":"For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the language of section 554.08(b)(1) is","paragraphs":["para_254"]},{"title":"Neither the Minnesota Statutes nor Black’s Law Dictionary define “governmental","paragraphs":["para_256","para_257","para_258"]},{"title":"Minnesota Board of Social Work via their social worker complaint procedure and qualifies","paragraphs":["para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263"]},{"title":"Ashley argues that the statements in Adam’s report are not protected under section","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"554.08(b)(1) because they were part of a report that initiated a governmental proceeding","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(the board’s investigation of Ashley’s alleged misconduct) rather than being made during","paragraphs":["para_267","para_268","para_269"]},{"title":"11","paragraphs":["para_271","para_272"]},{"title":"We read and interpret statutes as a whole. Am. Fam. Ins. Grp. v. Schroedl, 616","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"N.W.2d 273, 277 (Minn. 2000). “[W]e may consult dictionary definitions to determine a","paragraphs":["para_275","para_276","para_277"]},{"title":"Dictionary 350 (12th ed. 2024). As Adam’s report to the board was a written message","paragraphs":["para_279","para_280","para_281"]},{"title":"Law Dictionary 836 (12th ed. 2024). Because the board is a state agency, it satisfies the","paragraphs":["para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290"]},{"title":"Black’s Law Dictionary provides an expansive definition of the","paragraphs":["para_292","para_293"]},{"title":"12","paragraphs":["para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298"]},{"title":"In re Civ. Commitment of Swope, 26 N.W.3d 275, 284 (Minn. 2025) (quoting Black’s Law","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Dictionary 1459 (12th ed. 2024)). Considering the “expansive” definition of “proceeding,”","paragraphs":["para_301","para_302","para_303"]},{"title":"Additionally, under the canon against surplusage, which “we employ when","paragraphs":["para_305","para_306"]},{"title":"12 N.W.3d 711, 716 (Minn. 2024) (quotation omitted). Because section 554.08(b)(2)","paragraphs":["para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311"]},{"title":"Accordingly, the district court correctly determined that because Adam’s speech was","paragraphs":["para_313","para_314","para_315"]},{"title":"If the moving party meets its burden of proving that UPEPA applies under section","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"554.08(b), the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to establish that an exception","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"13","paragraphs":["para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325","para_326","para_327","para_328","para_329"]},{"title":"Even adopting Ashley’s interpretation of the exception, Ashley’s argument fails","paragraphs":["para_331"]},{"title":"See Halva v. Minn. State Colls. & Univs., 953 N.W.2d 496, 500 (Minn. 2021) (stating that","paragraphs":["para_333","para_334","para_335","para_336","para_337","para_338","para_339","para_340"]},{"title":"14","paragraphs":["para_342","para_343","para_344","para_345"]},{"title":"In sum, the district court correctly determined that UPEPA applies to Ashley’s","paragraphs":["para_347","para_348","para_349","para_350","para_351","para_352","para_353"]},{"title":"B. Part Two","paragraphs":["para_355","para_356","para_357"]},{"title":"As an initial matter, Ashley argues that at this stage, the district court erred in","paragraphs":["para_359","para_360","para_361","para_362","para_363"]},{"title":"15","paragraphs":["para_365","para_366"]},{"title":"Anderson, Survivors Speak Out: Analyzing Minnesota’s ANTI-SLAAP Law Through the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Lens of Johnson v. Freborg, 51 Mitchell Hamline L. Rev. 252, 288 (2025) [hereinafter","paragraphs":["para_369","para_370","para_371","para_372"]},{"title":"56.03.” Minn. Stat. § 554.12. Ashley had the ability to request more time to pursue","paragraphs":["para_374","para_375","para_376","para_377","para_378","para_379","para_380","para_381"]},{"title":"Cook v. Trimble, 22 N.W.3d 196, 204 (Minn. App. 2025) (“UPEPA provides an accelerated","paragraphs":["para_383","para_384","para_385","para_386"]},{"title":"16","paragraphs":["para_388","para_389"]},{"title":"(quotation omitted). When such a statement concerns “a person’s business, trade, or","paragraphs":["para_391","para_392"]},{"title":"1987). “But a plaintiff must prove the remaining elements to succeed in a defamation","paragraphs":["para_394"]},{"title":"Oct. 16, 2001). Minnesota courts have held that “a prima facie case simply means one that","paragraphs":["para_396","para_397"]},{"title":"The district court concluded that Ashley failed to make a prima facie showing","paragraphs":["para_399","para_400","para_401","para_402","para_403","para_404","para_405"]},{"title":"Capella Univ., 788 N.W.2d 76, 80 (Minn. 2010) (“A plaintiff must provide more than","paragraphs":["para_407"]},{"title":"Ashley acknowledges was privately submitted to the board, would impact public","paragraphs":["para_409"]},{"title":"17","paragraphs":["para_411","para_412","para_413","para_414","para_415"]},{"title":"Because we conclude that Ashley failed to establish a prima facie case for each","paragraphs":["para_417","para_418","para_419","para_420","para_421"]},{"title":"Ashley argues that Minnesota Statutes section 554.13(a)(1)-(2) is unconstitutional","paragraphs":["para_423","para_424","para_425","para_426","para_427","para_428"]},{"title":"8 We conclude that the district court properly dismissed Ashley’s civil-conspiracy claim","paragraphs":["para_430","para_431","para_432","para_433","para_434"]},{"title":"18","paragraphs":["para_436"]},{"title":"Ashley contends that she did attempt to raise her constitutional challenge but was denied","paragraphs":["para_438","para_439","para_440","para_441","para_442","para_443"]},{"title":"The Minnesota Constitution establishes a categorical right to a jury trial for actions","paragraphs":["para_445","para_446","para_447","para_448"]},{"title":"Leiendecker, 895 N.W.2d at 634 (quotation omitted). Ashley argues that the district court","paragraphs":["para_450","para_451","para_452","para_453","para_454","para_455","para_456","para_457"]},{"title":"19","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"In Leiendecker, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota’s previous anti-","paragraphs":["para_460","para_461","para_462","para_463","para_464","para_465","para_466","para_467"]},{"title":"The supreme court reasoned that it was unconstitutional to impose such a heightened","paragraphs":["para_469","para_470"]},{"title":"Contrary to Ashley’s assertions, UPEPA does not suffer from the same infirmities","paragraphs":["para_472","para_473","para_474"]},{"title":"Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) and 56.” Cook, 22 N.W.3d at 204. District courts do not make","paragraphs":["para_476","para_477","para_478","para_479"]},{"title":"Nw. Hosp., 947 N.W.2d 58, 68 (Minn. 2020) (stating that, when reviewing a case dismissed","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"20","paragraphs":["para_482","para_483","para_484"]},{"title":"Additionally, the UPEPA framework does not require the nonmoving party to meet","paragraphs":["para_486"]},{"title":"N.W.2d at 636. UPEPA requires that the nonmoving party “establish a prima facie case as","paragraphs":["para_488","para_489"]},{"title":"496. While the district court may have indicated that Ashley, as the nonmoving party, must","paragraphs":["para_491","para_492","para_493"]},{"title":"Corr., 598 N.W.2d 393, 406 (Minn. App. 1999) (“Because [appellant] was unable to","paragraphs":["para_495","para_496"]},{"title":"(Minn. 2016) (“When reviewing a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, we","paragraphs":["para_498","para_499"]},{"title":"We therefore conclude that UPEPA, as applied by the district court, is","paragraphs":["para_501"]},{"title":"10 While not binding, we find Davenport Extreme Pools & Spas, Inc. v. Mulflur, 698","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"S.W.3d 140, 154 (Ky. Ct. App. 2024), persuasive in our constitutional analysis. See Matter","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"21","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"III. The district court did not err in denying Ashley’s post-judgment motion","paragraphs":["para_506"]},{"title":"Ashley argues that the district court erred in dismissing her rule 60.02 motion for","paragraphs":["para_508","para_509","para_510"]},{"title":"A district court abuses its discretion when its findings are unsupported by the","paragraphs":["para_512"]},{"title":"(Minn. 1985). “Rule 60.02 can be utilized only if one of the grounds specified in the rule","paragraphs":["para_514","para_515","para_516","para_517","para_518","para_519","para_520","para_521","para_522"]},{"title":"Minn. Stat. § 554.18 (“In applying and construing [UPEPA], consideration must be given","paragraphs":["para_524","para_525","para_526","para_527","para_528","para_529","para_530","para_531","para_532","para_533","para_534"]},{"title":"22","paragraphs":["para_536","para_537"]},{"title":"See Arzt v. Arzt, 361 N.W.2d 135, 136 (Minn. App. 1985) (“Rule 60.02 is intended to","paragraphs":["para_539","para_540"]},{"title":"60.02 can be used as a substitute for appeal based on a perceived judicial error.”). We","paragraphs":["para_542","para_543"]},{"title":"DECISION","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"A statement in a report to a state licensing board that initiates an investigation","paragraphs":["para_546"]},{"title":"Minnesota Statutes section 554.08(b)(1). Adam’s statement in the report to the board","paragraphs":["para_548","para_549","para_550","para_551","para_552"]},{"title":"11 Ashley cites Nordeen v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 382 N.W.2d 256 (Minn. App. 1986), in","paragraphs":["para_554","para_555","para_556","para_557","para_558"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"STATE OF MINNESOTA","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"IN COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"A25-1075","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"Ashley Anderson,","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"Appellant,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"vs.","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"Adam Aaron Anderson, et al.,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"Respondents.","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Filed April 27, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Affirmed","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Harris, Judge","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Stearns County District Court","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"File No. 73-CV-24-9839","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Michelle K. Olsen, Joseph C. Tourand, Tentinger Law Office, P.A., Apple Valley,","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"Minnesota (for appellant)","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"John G. Westrick, Samuel A. Savage, Savage Westrick, PLLP, Bloomington, Minnesota","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"(for respondents)","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Madeleine DeMeules, Assistant Attorney General,","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"St. Paul, Minnesota (for intervenor attorney general)","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Harris, Judge; and Jesson,","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"Judge.∗","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"SYLLABUS","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"A statement in a report to a state licensing board that initiates an investigation","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"constitutes a “communication in a . . . governmental proceeding” within the meaning of the","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"Minnesota Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), Minnesota Statutes","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"∗ Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"section 554.08(b)(1) (2024), such that claims based on the statement may be subject to a","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"special motion for expedited relief under UPEPA.","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"OPINION","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"HARRIS, Judge","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"Appellant challenges a district court order granting respondents’ special motion for","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"expedited relief under UPEPA, Minnesota Statutes sections 554.07-.20 (2024), and a","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"district court order denying appellant’s motion for post-judgment relief under Minnesota","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02. First, we conclude that the district court properly granted","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"respondents’ special motion for expedited relief under UPEPA because: (1) respondents’","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"alleged defamatory statements set forth in a report to the Minnesota Board of Social Work","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"constitutes a communication in a governmental proceeding, (2) appellant failed to establish","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"the applicability of any UPEPA exception, and (3) appellant failed to establish a prima","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"facie case as to each essential element of her defamation claims. Second, we conclude that","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"UPEPA is constitutional as applied by the district court here because the district court did","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"not make factual findings or place an excessive burden on appellant as the nonmovant to","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"defeat respondents’ special motion for expedited relief. Finally, we conclude that the","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for post-judgment","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"relief because a party may not invoke rule 60.02 to correct an alleged misapplication of the","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"law. On these grounds, we affirm.","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"FACTS","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"The following facts derive from the record before the district court on respondents’","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"special motion for expedited relief and are presented in the light most favorable to appellant","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"as the nonmoving party. See J&D Dental v. Hou, 26 N.W.3d 491, 494 n.1 (Minn. App.","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"2025); Paragon Restorations, LLC v. Robinet Prods., LLC, 31 N.W.3d 218, 220 (Minn.","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"App. 2025), rev. granted (Minn. Mar. 25, 2026).","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"Appellant Ashley Anderson1 is a licensed clinical social worker who has been","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"employed by the Central Minnesota Health Center in St. Cloud since 2013. Respondents","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"Adam Anderson, Arica Anderson, and Austin Anderson are Ashley’s siblings. Austin has","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"a history of mental-health issues and substance abuse, and disputes over Austin’s care and","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"guardianship have caused tension between Ashley and respondents. On September 16,","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"2024, the St. Cloud police arrested Austin on outstanding warrants and detained him at the","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"Stearns County Jail. At the request of the parties’ mother, Ann Anderson, Ashley called","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"the jail to inform its medical staff about Austin’s health complications stemming from his","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"Type I diabetes. Ashley conducted the call on speakerphone in the presence of Ann and","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"Adam and did not mention her social work qualifications.","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"On October 1, 2024, Ashley received formal notice from the Minnesota Board of","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"Social Work (the board) informing her that the board had initiated an investigation for","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"professional misconduct based on allegations made via the board’s online public complaint","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"registration form (the report). Ashley later learned that Adam had submitted the report to","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"the board. Adam had checked boxes on the form indicating that he was a “licensed health","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"professional,” “licensed social worker,” and “insurer.” The report stated:","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"1 Because all parties share the same last name, we refer to the parties by first name","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"individually or by party designation collectively.","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"On Monday, September 16th, 2024, our [brother] was arrested","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"in St. Cloud, MN, on a misdemeanor warrant through Benton","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"County, MN. We know this information was not made public","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"before his arrest and our brother did not know there was an","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"active warrant. Ashley claims that our brother also has a","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"warrant through Stearns County that we cannot see on the","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"Stearns County Active Warrant List. We do know that Ashley","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"is employed by not only the above agency but also Stearns","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"County jail in some capacity working nights a couple of times","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"a week.[2] During his stay in jail, our brother filed a Motion of","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"Discovery during his stay in Benton County jail and it was","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"discovered that the location that the call was placed matched","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"the location where Ashley and a coworker of hers had been","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"watching him meet with other family members. The phone","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"number used to call in the warrant matches the work phone","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"number she utilizes. Due to the warrant information not being","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"public prior to his arrest, the concern lies with Ashley","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"Anderson obtaining this information illegally, using her","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"position at the jail to gain this access. Other records accessed","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"were police reports and an investigation summary that is not","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"available to the public. The pictures attached will show the","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"information that was accessed by a program not accessible to","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"the public.","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"In the past, Ashley has also used her position to gain access to","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"other confidential information regarding health records of our","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"brother. Due to paperwork filed in Benton County, MN, our","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"brother was deemed a vulnerable adult in need of a guardian to","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"assist him in making decisions and taking care of his medical","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"needs. Upon helping our brother electronically file the","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"necessary paperwork for health insurance, Ashley utilized","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"another social work contact named “Cass” in Crow Wing","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"County to push the paperwork through the waiting queue to get","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"him approved more quickly. Ashley has used other","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"questionable means to obtain protected health information","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"regarding immediate family members including impersonating","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"her mother on the phone with medical and county entities","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"(mother was listed as legal guardian at the time). She has often","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"[sic] to other family members, including the guardian of our","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"brother, that “we need to accept her professional opinion” in","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"regard to treatment and resources. In the years leading up to","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"2 In her affidavit, Ashley claims she never worked for the Stearns County Jail.","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"this, Ashley has not advised our brother to seek mental health","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"treatment and often demonized him for not taking care of his","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"diabetes, when it appears that there is an underlying cause for","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"this. Ashley’s “professional opinion” ethically cannot be","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"applied due to the social worker code of conduct and also her","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"employer’s work policies. This is a conflict of interest and","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"abuse of her power as a social worker. I’m concerned that if","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"this is happening to my brother, that this may be happening to","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"the clients she serves, past and present. (Emphasis added.)","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"Ashley brought claims for defamation, defamation per se, and civil conspiracy","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"against respondents based on the italicized statements above.3 Respondents moved the","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"district court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice under: (1) Minnesota Rules of Civil","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"Procedure 12.02(e) and 12.03, (2) UPEPA, and (3) Minnesota Statutes section 148E.285,","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"subdivision 3 (2024). Respondents also moved for costs, disbursements, and attorney fees","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"pursuant to UPEPA. See Minn. Stat. § 554.16. The district court granted respondents’","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"motion to dismiss Ashley’s claims with prejudice and ordered respondents to submit an","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"affidavit for attorney fees incurred in association with the UPEPA claim.","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"The district court concluded that respondents’ speech was protected under UPEPA","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"because: (1) the report was a communication in a governmental proceeding and was on a","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"matter of public concern, (2) Ashley failed to show that any exceptions to UPEPA applied,","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"and (3) Ashley failed to establish a prima facie case sufficient to defeat a summary-","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"judgment motion as to each essential element of her defamation claims.4 The district court","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"3 Ashley brought her defamation and defamation per se claims solely against Adam and","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"brought the civil-conspiracy claim against all respondents.","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"4 We recognize that, at the time of the district court’s order, there was no Minnesota case","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"law interpreting or applying UPEPA.","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"further concluded that, even if UPEPA did not bar Ashley’s defamation claims,","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"respondents were statutorily immune under Minnesota Statutes section 148E.285,","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"subdivision 3. See Minn. Stat. § 148E.285, subd. 3 (“An individual . . . is immune from","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"civil liability . . . for submitting in good faith a report under subdivision 1 or 2 or for","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"otherwise reporting, providing information, or testifying about violations or alleged","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"violations of this chapter.”).","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"Ashley subsequently moved to vacate the district court’s order pursuant to rule","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"60.02(a) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, asserting that the district court erred","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"in its application of UPEPA. In her rule 60.02 motion, Ashley argued for the first time that","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"UPEPA, as applied by the district court, violated her constitutional right to a jury trial as","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"established by Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minn., 895 N.W.2d 623 (Minn.","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"2017). The district court’s order declined to address Ashley’s rule 60.02 motion because","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"it found that the motion was, “in actuality, a motion to reconsider,” and raised arguments","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"that should be made on appeal to this court.","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"Ashley appealed, arguing that the district court erred in granting respondents’","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"special motion for expedited relief and erred in declining to address Ashley’s rule 60.02","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"motion.5 That same day, Ashley provided notice of her constitutional challenge to UPEPA","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"to the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office pursuant to rule 144 of the Minnesota Rules","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"5 The district court issued an order for attorney fees on April 21 but did not enter judgment","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"on the order. Following Ashley’s appeal, we requested informal memoranda on the issue","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"of attorney fees and dismissed “[t]he part of [Ashley’s] appeal seeking review of the","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"April 21, 2025 order awarding respondents’ attorney fees . . . as premature.” The issue of","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"attorney fees is not before this court.","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"of Civil Appellate Procedure. On July 31, 2025, the attorney general’s office moved to","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"intervene to defend the constitutionality of UPEPA, which this court granted.","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"ISSUES","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"I. Did the district court err in granting respondents’ special motion for expedited relief","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"under UPEPA?","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"II. Is UPEPA unconstitutional as applied to Ashley?","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"III. Did the district court err in denying Ashley’s post-judgment motion?","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"ANALYSIS","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"I. The district court did not err in granting respondents’ special motion for","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"expedited relief under UPEPA.6","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"Before addressing Ashley’s specific arguments challenging the district court’s order","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"granting respondents’ special motion for expedited relief under UPEPA, we briefly","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"describe the pertinent legal framework.","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"The Minnesota Legislature adopted UPEPA, a uniform anti-SLAPP (strategic","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"lawsuit against public participation) statute, in 2024.7 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 123, art. 18,","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"§ 16, at 2412-17. Under UPEPA, a party may file a special motion for expedited relief to","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"dismiss the cause of action within 60 days of the date the party is served with the complaint.","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"6 Ashley also argues, in the alternative, that the district court erred in concluding that, even","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"if UPEPA does not apply, respondents “enjoy statutory immunity under Minnesota Statutes","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"section 148E.285.” That provision is in Chapter 148E—the Minnesota Board of Social","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"Work Practice Act—which regulates the profession of social work. Based upon our","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"decision to affirm on the ground that the district court did not err in granting respondents’","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"motion for expedited relief under UPEPA, we need not address this argument.","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"7 In adopting UPEPA, the legislature repealed Minnesota’s previous anti-SLAPP statute,","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"Minnesota Statutes sections 554.01-.06 (2022), which the supreme court ruled","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"unconstitutional as applied to tort claims in Leiendecker, 895 N.W.2d at 638.","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"Minn. Stat. § 554.09. If the moving party prevails on the motion, “the court shall award","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"court costs, reasonable attorney fees, and reasonable litigation expenses related to the","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"motion.” Minn. Stat. § 554.16.","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"We review a district court’s decision on a special motion for expedited relief de","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"novo. J&D Dental, 26 N.W.3d at 496. Courts use a three-part analysis to assess special","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"motions for expedited relief:","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"First, a district court must determine whether UPEPA applies","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"to the action at issue. Minn. Stat. § 554.13(a)(1)-(2). Second,","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"a district court must determine whether the nonmoving party","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"has established a prima facie case for each essential element of","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"the challenged causes of action. Id. (a)(3)(i). And third, a","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"district court must determine whether the moving party has","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"demonstrated a basis for dismissal either for failure to state a","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"claim or because there are no genuine issues of material fact","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"and judgment is appropriate as a matter of law. Id. (a)(3)(ii).","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"Id. at 496. We review each phase in turn.","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"A. Part One","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"We must first determine whether UPEPA applies in this case. See Minn. Stat.","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"§ 554.13(a)(1)-(2). UPEPA applies if: (1) “the moving party establishes under","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"section 554.08, paragraph (b), that sections 554.07 to 554.19 apply,” and (2) “the","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"responding party fails to establish under section 554.08, paragraph (c), that sections 554.07","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"to 554.19 do not apply[.]” Id. Minnesota Statutes section 554.08, paragraph (b) provides:","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"(b) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (c),","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"sections 554.07 to 554.19 apply to a cause of action asserted in","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"a civil action against a person based on the person’s:","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"(1) communication in a legislative, executive,","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceeding;","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"(2) communication on an issue under","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"consideration or review in a legislative, executive, judicial,","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"administrative, or other governmental proceeding; or","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"(3) exercise of the right of freedom of speech or","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"of the press, the right to assemble or petition, or the right of","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"association, guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"Minnesota Constitution on a matter of public concern.","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"Minn. Stat. § 554.08(b).","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"The district court concluded that Adam’s speech fell under UPEPA because it was a","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"“communication in a . . . governmental proceeding” and was “speech on a matter of public","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"concern.” Minn. Stat. § 554.08(b)(1), (3). Ashley disputes both conclusions. Because we","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"conclude that the district court did not err in determining that Adam’s statements set forth","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"in a report to the board was a “communication in a . . . governmental proceeding” under","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"section 554.08(b)(1), such that claims based on the statements may be subject to a special","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"motion for expedited relief under UPEPA, we need not address whether the district court","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"erred in determining that Adam’s speech was speech on a matter of public concern under","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"section 554.08(b)(3).","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"1. Communication in a Governmental Proceeding","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"Ashley argues that the district court erred in determining that Adam’s speech was a","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"“communication in a . . . governmental proceeding” under section 554.08(b)(1). Ashley’s","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"argument requires us to interpret this phrase in UPEPA. This court reviews questions of","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"statutory interpretation de novo. Lee v. Lee, 775 N.W.2d 631, 637 (Minn. 2009). The goal","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"of statutory interpretation is to “ascertain and effectuate the intention of the Legislature.”","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"Marks v. Comm’r of Revenue, 875 N.W.2d 321, 324 (Minn. 2016). “[W]e give words and","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"phrases their plain and ordinary meaning” and “read the statute as a whole and give effect","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"10","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"to all of its provisions.” Graphic Commc’ns Loc. 1B Health & Welfare Fund “A” v. CVS","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"Caremark Corp., 850 N.W.2d 682, 689 (Minn. 2014). If the statute is clear, we enforce its","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"plain meaning. Id. To determine a statute’s plain meaning, we construe its “words and","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"phrases according to the rules of grammar and their common and approved usage. Jones","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"v. Borchardt, 775 N.W.2d 646, 647 (Minn. 2009); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2024).","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the language of section 554.08(b)(1) is","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"unambiguous.","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"Neither the Minnesota Statutes nor Black’s Law Dictionary define “governmental","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"proceeding.” Therefore, the district court relied on Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition of","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"“communication” and Arizona’s anti-SLAPP statute’s definition of “governmental","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"proceeding” in concluding that “[t]he complaint in this case was submitted to the","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"Minnesota Board of Social Work via their social worker complaint procedure and qualifies","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"as a communication in a governmental proceeding under section 554.08(b).” See Ariz.","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-751(2) (2024) (defining “governmental proceeding” as a proceeding,","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"other than a judicial proceeding, by an officer, official, or body of this state and any political","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"subdivision of this state, including boards and commissions).","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"Ashley argues that the statements in Adam’s report are not protected under section","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"554.08(b)(1) because they were part of a report that initiated a governmental proceeding","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"(the board’s investigation of Ashley’s alleged misconduct) rather than being made during","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"or “in” an already existing government proceeding. However, such an interpretation would","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"render section 554.08(b)(2) superfluous. That section provides that claims based on any","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"“communication on an issue under consideration or review in a legislative, executive,","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"11","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceeding” are subject to UPEPA. Minn.","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"Stat. § 554.08(b)(2) (emphasis added).","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"We read and interpret statutes as a whole. Am. Fam. Ins. Grp. v. Schroedl, 616","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"N.W.2d 273, 277 (Minn. 2000). “[W]e may consult dictionary definitions to determine a","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"word’s plain meaning.” Mittelstaedt v. Henney, 969 N.W.2d 634, 639 (Minn. 2022). A","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"“communication” is “[t]he interchange of messages or ideas by speech, writing, gestures,","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"or conduct; the process of bringing an idea to another’s perception.” Black’s Law","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"Dictionary 350 (12th ed. 2024). As Adam’s report to the board was a written message","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"intended to bring an idea to the board’s perception—that Ashley may be abusing her","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"position as a licensed social worker—his report is a “communication.”","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"“Governmental” is defined as “[o]f, relating to, or involving a government.” Black’s","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"Law Dictionary 836 (12th ed. 2024). Because the board is a state agency, it satisfies the","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"“governmental” requirement of “governmental proceeding.” See Minn. Stat. § 14.02,","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"subd. 2 (2024) (defining “agency” to mean “any state officer, board, commission, bureau,","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"division, department, or tribunal, other than a judicial branch court and the Tax Court,","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"having a statewide jurisdiction and authorized by law to make rules or to adjudicate","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"contested cases”); Minn. Stat. § 148E.030 (2024) (providing that “[t]he board may adopt","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"and enforce rules to carry out [its] duties,” which include “taking disciplinary, adversarial,","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"corrective, or other actions” when a social worker “violates the requirements of this","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"chapter”). Further, the supreme court recently explained that","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"Black’s Law Dictionary provides an expansive definition of the","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"word “proceeding,” which encompasses all manner of business","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"that comes before a court. Proceedings can include “acts and","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"12","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"events” that make up a lawsuit, the “procedural means for","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"seeking redress from a tribunal or agency,” “[a]n act or step","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"that is part of a larger action,” or the business conducted by a","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"court or other official body.","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"In re Civ. Commitment of Swope, 26 N.W.3d 275, 284 (Minn. 2025) (quoting Black’s Law","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"Dictionary 1459 (12th ed. 2024)). Considering the “expansive” definition of “proceeding,”","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"we conclude that, on these facts, a report made to a state licensing board through the board’s","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"publicly available complaint form that initiates an investigation constitutes a","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"“communication in a . . . governmental proceeding.” Minn. Stat. § 554.08(b)(1).","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"Additionally, under the canon against surplusage, which “we employ when","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"determining whether a statute is ambiguous,” we “avoid interpretations that would render","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"a word or phrase superfluous, void, or insignificant.” In re Civ. Commitment of Benson,","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"12 N.W.3d 711, 716 (Minn. 2024) (quotation omitted). Because section 554.08(b)(2)","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"extends UPEPA to claims based on communications on issues “under consideration or","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"review” in a “governmental proceeding,” any interpretation of section 554.08(b)(1)","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"requiring that a communication be made during an ongoing governmental proceeding","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"would run afoul of the canon against surplusage.","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"Accordingly, the district court correctly determined that because Adam’s speech was","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"a “communication in a . . . governmental proceeding,” UPEPA applied to Ashley’s civil","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"action based on that speech.","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"2. Ashley failed to show the applicability of a UPEPA exception.","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"If the moving party meets its burden of proving that UPEPA applies under section","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"554.08(b), the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to establish that an exception","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"13","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"applies as provided in section 554.08(c). Minn. Stat. § 554.13(a)(2). Ashley contends that","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"one of the statutory exceptions applies to the circumstances presented here. Specifically,","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"she relies on Minn. Stat. § 554.08(c)(4), which provides that “[UPEPA] do[es] not apply","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"to a cause of action . . . against a person named in a civil suit brought by a victim of a crime","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"against a perpetrator.” The district court concluded that this exception did not apply","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"because Ashley failed to provide evidence that any of the respondents had been charged","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"with or convicted of criminal defamation. On appeal, Ashley argues that the exception","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"should apply regardless of whether respondents were charged with or convicted of criminal","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"defamation because “she sufficiently pled the cause of action for civil defamation against","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"respondents—which satisfies the burden of proof required in showing criminal","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"defamation.” We disagree with Ashley’s contention.","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"Even adopting Ashley’s interpretation of the exception, Ashley’s argument fails","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"because she does not assert that Adam knew his statements in the complaint were false.","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"See Halva v. Minn. State Colls. & Univs., 953 N.W.2d 496, 500 (Minn. 2021) (stating that","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"a pleading is satisfactory if it provides “information sufficient to fairly notify the opposing","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"party of the claim against it” (quotation omitted)). A person is guilty of criminal","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"defamation if the person “orally, in writing or by any other means, communicate[] any false","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"and defamatory matter to a third person without the consent of the person defamed” and","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"have “knowledge of [the communication’s] false and defamatory character.” Minn. Stat.","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"§ 609.765, subd. 2 (2024). Ashley failed to allege that respondents knew of the report’s","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"false and defamatory character. Rather, her complaint contained mere conclusions that","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"respondents acted with “malice,” “ill will,” “improper motives,” and with “the intent of","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"14","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"defaming Ashley.” See Walsh v. U.S. Bank, 851 N.W.2d 598, 603 (Minn. 2014) (“[W]e","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"are not bound by legal conclusions stated in a complaint when determining whether the","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"complaint survives a motion to dismiss.” (quotation omitted)). We therefore conclude that","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"Ashley failed to establish an applicable UPEPA exception.","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"In sum, the district court correctly determined that UPEPA applies to Ashley’s","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"claims. Adam’s report to the board constitutes a “communication in a . . . governmental","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"proceeding” within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 554.08(b)(1). And because respondents","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"met their burden of establishing UPEPA’s applicability, the burden shifted to Ashley to","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"demonstrate that a statutory exception applies. She failed to do so. Ashley did not","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"adequately allege the elements of criminal defamation, as she did not assert that Adam","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"knew his statements were false and defamatory. Accordingly, the district court did not err","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"in concluding that UPEPA applied to Ashley’s civil action.","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"B. Part Two","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"Because UPEPA applies, we must evaluate whether the nonmoving party, Ashley,","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"established a prima facie case for each essential element of the challenged causes of action.","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"See Minn. Stat. § 554.13(a)(3)(i).","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"As an initial matter, Ashley argues that at this stage, the district court erred in","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"converting respondents’ rule 12 motion to a summary-judgment motion. Ashley asserts","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"that respondents’ “rule 12 motion should not have been converted to [a] rule 56.03","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"[motion]” because the summary-judgment standard was “not appropriate for the procedural","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"stage the parties were at” given that no discovery had occurred and because respondents’","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"motion to dismiss was based on Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(e). The district","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"15","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"court determined that Ashley failed to “establish a prima facie cause of action, showing","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"that the case ‘would survive a motion for summary judgment.’” (quoting Taylor J.","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"Anderson, Survivors Speak Out: Analyzing Minnesota’s ANTI-SLAAP Law Through the","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"Lens of Johnson v. Freborg, 51 Mitchell Hamline L. Rev. 252, 288 (2025) [hereinafter","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"Survivors Speak Out].","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"When ruling on a motion for expedited relief, “the court shall consider the pleadings,","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"the motion, any reply or response to the motion, and any evidence that could be considered","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"in ruling on a motion for summary judgment under Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"56.03.” Minn. Stat. § 554.12. Ashley had the ability to request more time to pursue","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"discovery, but nothing in the record suggests that she exercised this ability. See Minn. Stat.","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"§ 554.10(d) (stating that upon the filing of a motion for expedited relief, “the court may","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"allow limited discovery if a party shows that specific information is necessary to establish","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"whether a party has satisfied or failed to satisfy a burden under section 554.13","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"paragraph (a), and the information is not reasonably available unless discovery is","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"allowed”). Therefore, the district court’s application of the summary-judgment standard","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"was “appropriate for the procedural stage the parties were at” given that UPEPA","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"incorporates the rule 56 standard and provides an avenue for expedited discovery. See","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"Cook v. Trimble, 22 N.W.3d 196, 204 (Minn. App. 2025) (“UPEPA provides an accelerated","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"procedure for obtaining rulings under standards articulated in Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e)","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"and 56.”), rev. granted (Aug. 12, 2025).","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"“Under the common law, a plaintiff pursuing a defamation claim must prove that","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"the defendant made: (a) a false and defamatory statement about the plaintiff; (b) in an","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"16","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"unprivileged publication to a third party; (c) that harmed the plaintiff’s reputation in the","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"community.” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., 929 N.W.2d 868, 873 (Minn. 2019)","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"(quotation omitted). When such a statement concerns “a person’s business, trade, or","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"professional conduct,” it is considered defamation per se, which does not require proof of","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"actual damages. Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Eng’g Co., 401 N.W.2d 655, 661 (Minn.","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"1987). “But a plaintiff must prove the remaining elements to succeed in a defamation","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"action.” Bebo v. Delander, 632 N.W.2d 732, 739 (Minn. App. 2001), rev. denied (Minn.","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"Oct. 16, 2001). Minnesota courts have held that “a prima facie case simply means one that","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"prevails in the absence of evidence invalidating it.” S. Minn. Beet Sugar Coop. v. County","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"of Renville, 737 N.W.2d 545, 558 (Minn. 2007) (quotation omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"The district court concluded that Ashley failed to make a prima facie showing","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"sufficient to defeat a summary-judgment motion that Adam’s statements “have tended to","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"harm her reputation and lower her in the estimation of the community.” Ashley argues that","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"the allegations in her complaint, taken as true, were sufficient to establish a prima facie","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"case on this essential element because she alleged that Adam’s “false and defamatory","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"statements about Ashley tended to harm, and have in fact harmed, Ashley’s reputation in","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"the estimation of the community.” This conclusory statement, alone, is insufficient to","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"establish a prima facie case as to the last element of a defamation claim. See Bahr v.","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"Capella Univ., 788 N.W.2d 76, 80 (Minn. 2010) (“A plaintiff must provide more than","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"labels and conclusions.”). Further, Ashley fails to explain how Adam’s report, which","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"Ashley acknowledges was privately submitted to the board, would impact public","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"perception without the board taking disciplinary action against her, which the record","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"17","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"reflects has not occurred. Because Ashley failed to establish that Adam’s speech had","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"harmed her reputation in the community, the district court properly dismissed Ashley’s","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"complaint with prejudice under UPEPA. See Minn. Stat. § 554.13(a)(3)(i) (stating that the","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"district court “shall dismiss with prejudice a cause of action” when “the responding party","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"fails to establish a prima facie case as to each essential element of the cause of action”).","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"Because we conclude that Ashley failed to establish a prima facie case for each","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"essential element of her defamation claims,8 we do not reach the third phase of the UPEPA","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"analysis—whether respondents have demonstrated a basis for dismissal for failure to state","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"a claim or because there are no genuine issues of material fact and summary judgment is","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"appropriate as a matter of law. See Minn. Stat. § 554.13(a)(3)(ii).","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"II. UPEPA is constitutional as applied by the district court.","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"Ashley argues that Minnesota Statutes section 554.13(a)(1)-(2) is unconstitutional","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"as applied to her because the district court created an unconstitutional burden shift that","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"impedes her constitutional right to a jury trial. See Minn. Const. art. I, § 4. As an initial","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"matter, we address the attorney general’s argument that Ashley forfeited her constitutional","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"challenge because she failed to raise it until her rule 60.02 motion, which the district court","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"declined to consider. See Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (“A reviewing","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"8 We conclude that the district court properly dismissed Ashley’s civil-conspiracy claim","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"against respondents as it is not supported by an underlying tort. Civil conspiracy is not an","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"independent cause of action; rather, it is a derivative claim that must be supported by an","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"underlying tort. Harding v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 41 N.W.2d 818, 825 (Minn. 1950). If the","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"underlying tort claim fails, then the conspiracy claim necessarily fails as well. Cf. D.A.B.","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"v. Brown, 570 N.W.2d 168, 172 (Minn. App. 1997).","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"18","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted)).","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"Ashley contends that she did attempt to raise her constitutional challenge but was denied","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"due process when the district court summarily concluded that her rule 60.02 motion","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"constituted an impermissible motion for reconsideration. She further asserts that, even if","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"the constitutional challenge were deemed forfeited under Thiele, such forfeiture would","paragraph_id":"para_440"},{"text":"apply only to a facial challenge, not to a challenge to the statute as applied to her case. For","paragraph_id":"para_441"},{"text":"purposes of this analysis, we assume without deciding that Ashley’s as-applied","paragraph_id":"para_442"},{"text":"constitutional challenge was not forfeited.","paragraph_id":"para_443"},{"text":"The Minnesota Constitution establishes a categorical right to a jury trial for actions","paragraph_id":"para_444"},{"text":"at law, stating that the “right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, and shall extend to all","paragraph_id":"para_445"},{"text":"cases at law without regard to the amount in controversy.” Minn. Const. art. I, § 4; see","paragraph_id":"para_446"},{"text":"Leiendecker, 895 N.W.2d at 634. A law violates this right “if it renders the jury-trial right","paragraph_id":"para_447"},{"text":"so burdened with conditions that it is not a jury trial” as guaranteed by the constitution.","paragraph_id":"para_448"},{"text":"Leiendecker, 895 N.W.2d at 634 (quotation omitted). Ashley argues that the district court","paragraph_id":"para_449"},{"text":"unduly burdened her constitutional right to a jury trial in holding that, once Adam","paragraph_id":"para_450"},{"text":"demonstrated that UPEPA applies, the burden shifts to her as the nonmoving party to","paragraph_id":"para_451"},{"text":"demonstrate the case has merit sufficient to survive a rule 56.03 motion for summary","paragraph_id":"para_452"},{"text":"judgment.9 Ashley contends that “this burden shift application has already been","paragraph_id":"para_453"},{"text":"determined by the Minnesota Supreme Court [in Leiendecker] to unconstitutionally usurp","paragraph_id":"para_454"},{"text":"the role of the jury by making pretrial factual findings.”","paragraph_id":"para_455"},{"text":"9 The district court relied on a recent law review article in adopting this burden-shifting","paragraph_id":"para_456"},{"text":"analysis. See Survivors Speak Out, supra, at 288.","paragraph_id":"para_457"},{"text":"19","paragraph_id":"para_458"},{"text":"In Leiendecker, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota’s previous anti-","paragraph_id":"para_459"},{"text":"SLAPP statute was unconstitutional because it “instruct[ed] district courts to usurp the role","paragraph_id":"para_460"},{"text":"of the jury by making pretrial factual findings that c[ould] . . . result in the complete","paragraph_id":"para_461"},{"text":"dismissal of the underlying action.” Id. at 635. The supreme court explained that two","paragraph_id":"para_462"},{"text":"clauses of the anti-SLAPP statute violated the responding party’s constitutional right to a","paragraph_id":"para_463"},{"text":"civil jury trial under article I, section 4 of the Minnesota Constitution because the clauses","paragraph_id":"para_464"},{"text":"“transfer[red] the jury’s fact-finding role to the district court” and “require[d] the","paragraph_id":"para_465"},{"text":"responding party to meet a higher burden of proof before trial (clear and convincing","paragraph_id":"para_466"},{"text":"evidence) than it would have to meet at trial (preponderance of the evidence).” Id. at 636.","paragraph_id":"para_467"},{"text":"The supreme court reasoned that it was unconstitutional to impose such a heightened","paragraph_id":"para_468"},{"text":"pleading standard and require a district court to “make a finding based on evidence, rather","paragraph_id":"para_469"},{"text":"than assuming that the allegations are true.” Id. (quotation omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_470"},{"text":"Contrary to Ashley’s assertions, UPEPA does not suffer from the same infirmities","paragraph_id":"para_471"},{"text":"as Minnesota’s previous anti-SLAPP statute. Unlike Minnesota’s previous anti-SLAPP","paragraph_id":"para_472"},{"text":"statute, UPEPA does not require district courts to make factual findings. UPEPA merely","paragraph_id":"para_473"},{"text":"“provides an accelerated procedure for obtaining rulings under standards articulated in","paragraph_id":"para_474"},{"text":"Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) and 56.” Cook, 22 N.W.3d at 204. District courts do not make","paragraph_id":"para_475"},{"text":"factual findings at either the summary-judgment or motion-to-dismiss-for-failure-to-state-","paragraph_id":"para_476"},{"text":"a-claim stages. See Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., 898 N.W.2d 623, 628 (Minn.","paragraph_id":"para_477"},{"text":"2017) (stating that a court “must not weigh facts or determine the credibility of affidavits","paragraph_id":"para_478"},{"text":"and other evidence” at the summary-judgment stage (quotation omitted)); Abel v. Abbott","paragraph_id":"para_479"},{"text":"Nw. Hosp., 947 N.W.2d 58, 68 (Minn. 2020) (stating that, when reviewing a case dismissed","paragraph_id":"para_480"},{"text":"20","paragraph_id":"para_481"},{"text":"for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, we “must consider only the","paragraph_id":"para_482"},{"text":"facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and must construe all reasonable","paragraph_id":"para_483"},{"text":"inferences in favor of the nonmoving party” (quotation omitted)).","paragraph_id":"para_484"},{"text":"Additionally, the UPEPA framework does not require the nonmoving party to meet","paragraph_id":"para_485"},{"text":"a higher burden of proof before trial as it would have to meet at trial. Cf. Leiendecker, 895","paragraph_id":"para_486"},{"text":"N.W.2d at 636. UPEPA requires that the nonmoving party “establish a prima facie case as","paragraph_id":"para_487"},{"text":"to each essential element of the cause of action” to survive the moving party’s special","paragraph_id":"para_488"},{"text":"motion for expedited relief. Minn. Stat. § 554.13(a)(3)(i); see J&D Dental, 26 N.W.3d at","paragraph_id":"para_489"},{"text":"496. While the district court may have indicated that Ashley, as the nonmoving party, must","paragraph_id":"para_490"},{"text":"establish a prima facie case sufficient to defeat a summary-judgment motion, it did not","paragraph_id":"para_491"},{"text":"violate Ashley’s constitutional right to a jury trial because this requirement is incorporated","paragraph_id":"para_492"},{"text":"into the standards for dismissals and summary judgments. See Wallin v. Minn. Dep’t of","paragraph_id":"para_493"},{"text":"Corr., 598 N.W.2d 393, 406 (Minn. App. 1999) (“Because [appellant] was unable to","paragraph_id":"para_494"},{"text":"establish a prima facie case as a matter of law, summary judgment was properly granted.”),","paragraph_id":"para_495"},{"text":"rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 21, 1999); Rilley v. MoneyMutual, LLC, 884 N.W.2d 321, 326","paragraph_id":"para_496"},{"text":"(Minn. 2016) (“When reviewing a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, we","paragraph_id":"para_497"},{"text":"determine whether, taking all the factual allegations in the complaint and supporting","paragraph_id":"para_498"},{"text":"affidavits as true, the plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction.”).","paragraph_id":"para_499"},{"text":"We therefore conclude that UPEPA, as applied by the district court, is","paragraph_id":"para_500"},{"text":"constitutional.10","paragraph_id":"para_501"},{"text":"10 While not binding, we find Davenport Extreme Pools & Spas, Inc. v. Mulflur, 698","paragraph_id":"para_502"},{"text":"S.W.3d 140, 154 (Ky. Ct. App. 2024), persuasive in our constitutional analysis. See Matter","paragraph_id":"para_503"},{"text":"21","paragraph_id":"para_504"},{"text":"III. The district court did not err in denying Ashley’s post-judgment motion","paragraph_id":"para_505"},{"text":"because rule 60.02 does not provide relief from misapplication of the law.","paragraph_id":"para_506"},{"text":"Ashley argues that the district court erred in dismissing her rule 60.02 motion for","paragraph_id":"para_507"},{"text":"post-judgment relief and in reasoning that her motion was a motion for reconsideration.","paragraph_id":"para_508"},{"text":"We review a district court’s application of rule 60.02 for an abuse of discretion. See Gams","paragraph_id":"para_509"},{"text":"v. Houghton, 884 N.W.2d 611, 619 (Minn. 2016).","paragraph_id":"para_510"},{"text":"A district court abuses its discretion when its findings are unsupported by the","paragraph_id":"para_511"},{"text":"evidence in the record or if it misapplies the law. Pikula v. Pikula, 374 N.W.2d 705, 710","paragraph_id":"para_512"},{"text":"(Minn. 1985). “Rule 60.02 can be utilized only if one of the grounds specified in the rule","paragraph_id":"para_513"},{"text":"exists.” Carter v. Anderson, 554 N.W.2d 110, 113 (Minn. App. 1996), rev. denied (Minn.","paragraph_id":"para_514"},{"text":"Dec. 23, 1996). Ashley’s rule 60.02 motion was predicated on the argument that the district","paragraph_id":"para_515"},{"text":"court improperly applied UPEPA. But misapplication of the law is not one of the grounds","paragraph_id":"para_516"},{"text":"of Tr. of Robert W. Moreland, 993 N.W.2d 80, 85 (Minn. 2023) (“When interpreting a","paragraph_id":"para_517"},{"text":"uniform law, we may consider other jurisdictions’ interpretations of similar sections of their","paragraph_id":"para_518"},{"text":"uniform . . . codes.”); State v. McClenton, 781 N.W.2d 181, 191 (Minn. App. 2010) (“We","paragraph_id":"para_519"},{"text":"recognize that although we are not bound to follow precedent from other states or federal","paragraph_id":"para_520"},{"text":"courts, these authorities can be persuasive.”), rev. denied (Minn. June 29, 2010). Kentucky,","paragraph_id":"para_521"},{"text":"like Minnesota, has adopted a version of UPEPA. Mulflur, 698 S.W.3d at 150; see also","paragraph_id":"para_522"},{"text":"Minn. Stat. § 554.18 (“In applying and construing [UPEPA], consideration must be given","paragraph_id":"para_523"},{"text":"to the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to its subject matter among states","paragraph_id":"para_524"},{"text":"that enact it.”). In Mulflur, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reasoned that UPEPA’s","paragraph_id":"para_525"},{"text":"requirement that the nonmoving party must “establish a prima facie case as to each","paragraph_id":"para_526"},{"text":"essential element” to survive a special motion for expedited relief is “already subsumed","paragraph_id":"para_527"},{"text":"into the standards for dismissals and summary judgments” and therefore does not “alter[]”","paragraph_id":"para_528"},{"text":"or “impair[]” vested rights. 698 S.W.3d at 152-53. The court explained that UPEPA","paragraph_id":"para_529"},{"text":"merely “permits parties an accelerated procedure for using established, substantive","paragraph_id":"para_530"},{"text":"defenses to dismiss non-meritorious claims” and provides “plaintiffs limited discovery to","paragraph_id":"para_531"},{"text":"make prima facie showings of the elements of their claims.” Id. at 154. Therefore, the","paragraph_id":"para_532"},{"text":"court concluded that, because UPEPA does not abolish or restrict any preexisting rights of","paragraph_id":"para_533"},{"text":"recovery, it does not violate Kentucky’s jural rights doctrine. Id. at 162.","paragraph_id":"para_534"},{"text":"22","paragraph_id":"para_535"},{"text":"specified in rule 60.02. Therefore, Ashley could not appropriately bring a 60.02 motion to","paragraph_id":"para_536"},{"text":"vacate a judgment based solely on the district court’s improper application of the law.11","paragraph_id":"para_537"},{"text":"See Arzt v. Arzt, 361 N.W.2d 135, 136 (Minn. App. 1985) (“Rule 60.02 is intended to","paragraph_id":"para_538"},{"text":"correct mistake or inadvertence of a party, or to allow for newly discovered evidence . . .","paragraph_id":"para_539"},{"text":"not to correct for judicial error.”); Carter, 554 N.W.2d at 114 (“[I]t is doubtful that [r]ule","paragraph_id":"para_540"},{"text":"60.02 can be used as a substitute for appeal based on a perceived judicial error.”). We","paragraph_id":"para_541"},{"text":"therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ashley’s","paragraph_id":"para_542"},{"text":"rule 60.02 motion for post-judgment relief.","paragraph_id":"para_543"},{"text":"DECISION","paragraph_id":"para_544"},{"text":"A statement in a report to a state licensing board that initiates an investigation","paragraph_id":"para_545"},{"text":"constitutes a “communication in a . . . governmental proceeding” within the meaning of","paragraph_id":"para_546"},{"text":"Minnesota Statutes section 554.08(b)(1). Adam’s statement in the report to the board","paragraph_id":"para_547"},{"text":"therefore qualifies as such a communication. Because Ashley failed to establish a prima","paragraph_id":"para_548"},{"text":"facie case for each essential element of her defamation claims, the district court did not err","paragraph_id":"para_549"},{"text":"in dismissing her complaint with prejudice under UPEPA. Accordingly, we affirm the","paragraph_id":"para_550"},{"text":"judgment in favor of respondents.","paragraph_id":"para_551"},{"text":"Affirmed.","paragraph_id":"para_552"},{"text":"11 Ashley cites Nordeen v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 382 N.W.2d 256 (Minn. App. 1986), in","paragraph_id":"para_553"},{"text":"support of her argument that district courts may use rule 60.02 motions to correct judicial","paragraph_id":"para_554"},{"text":"error. But Nordeen involved “the unique situation in which a district court corrected its","paragraph_id":"para_555"},{"text":"original decision based on the supreme court’s intervening reversal of an opinion from this","paragraph_id":"para_556"},{"text":"court.” Carter, 554 N.W.2d at 114. There has been no relevant intervening supreme court","paragraph_id":"para_557"},{"text":"case here. Thus, Nordeen is inapplicable.","paragraph_id":"para_558"}],"word_count":6359,"cites":[],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"63b750e9458c0787f89c92731401d3f0a030d3db6483311343326b9b0f42eeb6","source_url":"https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2026/OPa251075-042726.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-17T04:28:17.027+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/minnctapp-a251075-2026-04-27","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:minnctapp-a251075-2026-04-27","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:minnctapp-a251075-2026-04-27","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:minnctapp-a251075-2026-04-27","verification":{"stored_sha256":"63b750e9458c0787f89c92731401d3f0a030d3db6483311343326b9b0f42eeb6","recomputed_sha256":"63b750e9458c0787f89c92731401d3f0a030d3db6483311343326b9b0f42eeb6","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-18T04:10:02.862Z"}},"hash":"sha256:e47e2491eefc752986effbe6f215752f0b6082f8b4dcbd918cc4997312e358e3","version":"legal-2026-10-18","expires":"2026-10-19T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-18+legal-2026-10-18+2026-10-18T01:46:51","content_hash":"sha256:e47e2491eefc752986effbe6f215752f0b6082f8b4dcbd918cc4997312e358e3","revalidate_after":"2026-10-18T05:10:03.046Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:minnctapp-a251075-2026-04-27","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:minnctapp-a251075-2026-04-27"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:minnctapp-a251075-2026-04-27"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:minnctapp-a251075-2026-04-27"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/minnctapp-a251075-2026-04-27","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-f19d71c076562efb228b654f94636f8b","response_hash":"sha256:e47e2491eefc752986effbe6f215752f0b6082f8b4dcbd918cc4997312e358e3"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T11:44:45.353Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aminnctapp-a251075-2026-04-27&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":28516}}