Monte A. Mills

BUSINESS LITIGATION 

Monte represents clients in a variety of business disputes, and has litigated issues in state, federal, and appellate courts.

• Matter of Issuance of Air Emissions Permit No. 13700345-101 for PolyMet Mining, Inc., City of Hoyt Lakes, St. Louis Cnty., Minnesota, 955 N.W.2d 258 (Minn. 2021). Represented a mining company in appeals challenging decisions by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) to grant air-emissions permit for the NorthMet project, a copper-nickel-platinum group elements mine proposed by our client. Obtained favorable opinion from the Minnesota Supreme Court reversing the court of appeals and holding that applicable federal regulations and EPA guidance contemplated retrospective enforcement after synthetic minor source air-emissions permit, rather than prospective investigation, and that PCA was not required to scrutinize whether our client intended to expand mining operations in near future.

• Matter of NorthMet Project Permit to Mine Application Dated Dec. 2017, 959 N.W.2d 731 (Minn. 2021). Represented a mining company in appeals challenging decisions by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to grant permits for the NorthMet project, a copper-nickel-platinum group elements mine proposed by our client. Obtained favorable opinion from the Minnesota Supreme Court reversing the court of appeals and holding that the mere existence of a factual dispute, by itself, does not mandate that DNR hold a contested case hearing, and that evidence was sufficient to support DNR’s decision to deny a contested case hearing on all issues except whether bentonite amendment is a practical and workable mine reclamation technique.

• Hayden v. City of Minneapolis, 937 N.W.2d 790 (Minn. Ct. App. 2020). Represented Minnesota Vikings Football LLC in appeal and persuaded appellate court to affirm district court’s dismissal of claims challenging the Vikings’ rights to use the Commons park near US Bank Stadium.
• Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al. v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, No. A18-1956, 2019 WL 3545839 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2019). Represented a mining company in appeal challenging the rules governing nonferrous metallic mineral mining in Minnesota. Obtained favorable decision from the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirming the validity of the rules.
• In re Applications for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed NorthMet Project, No. A18-1312, A18-1524, A18-1608, 2019 WL 2262780 (Minn. Ct. App. May 28, 2019). Represented a mining company in appeals challenging decisions by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) denying requests for preparation of a supplemental environmental-impact statement (SEIS) regarding the NorthMet project, a copper-nickel-platinum group elements mine proposed by our client. Obtained favorable decision from the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirming DNR’s decisions to deny the petitions for an SEIS concerning the NorthMet project.
• Phone Recovery Servs., LLC v. Qwest Corp., et al., 919 N.W.2d 315 (Minn. 2018). Defended telecommunications carrier in qui tam action under the Minnesota False Claims Act alleging that carriers failed to pay fees and surcharges for 911 services and obtained decision from Minnesota Supreme Court affirming judgment dismissing action as prohibited by the tax bar.
• Hayden v. City of Minneapolis, et al., No. 27-cv-17-16643 (Minn. Dist. Ct. May 23, 2018). Represented Minnesota Vikings Football LLC as a defendant in lawsuit challenging the Vikings’ rights to use the Commons park near US Bank Stadium, and persuaded district court to grant the Vikings’ motion for summary judgment and dismiss all claims against the Vikings. 
• Medica Health Plans v. Minnesota Dept. of Human Services, et al., No. 62-cv-17-1478 (Minn. Dist. Ct. 2017). Represented a managed care organization as an Intervenor-Defendant in lawsuit challenging amendments to healthcare program contracts awarded after a government procurement process, and persuaded district court to deny plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief and dismiss lawsuit. 
• Koepke v. Buelow, No. 27-cv-14-20164 (Minn. Dist. Ct. 2016). Defended law firm and partner against various claims brought by former partner, persuaded district court to grant motion to dismiss certain claims in clients’ favor, and prevailed at trial on remaining claims.
• Smith v. Securus Technologies, Inc., 120 F.Supp.3d 976 (D. Minn. 2015). Defended telecommunications company against class action alleging claims under Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and persuaded federal district court to grant motion for summary judgment in client’s favor.
• Gander Mountain Co. v. Lazard Middle Mkt., LLC, No. A11-221, 2012 WL 118236 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2012). Defended financial company and obtained appellate decision affirming dismissal of client based on forum-selection clause in contract.
• Ductcap Products, Inc. v. J & S Fabrication, Inc., No. 09-1179, 2009 WL 3242022 (D. Minn. Oct. 2, 2009). Defended manufacturing company in patent case and persuaded federal district court to grant motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
• Schaaf v. Residential Funding Corp., 129 S.Ct. 222, 172 L.Ed.2d 142, cert. denied (Oct. 6, 2008); Schaaf v. Residential Funding Corp., 517 F.3d 544 (8th Cir. 2008); Schaaf v. Residential Funding Corp., No. 05-1319, 2006 WL 2506974 (D. Minn. Aug 29, 2006). Defended financial company and persuaded appellate court to affirm federal district court’s decision dismissing class action by bond holder based on absence of loss causation.
• Albert v. Qwest, 128 S.Ct. 447, 169 L.Ed.2d 312, cert. denied (Oct. 15, 2007); Albert v. Qwest, Nos. 07-1108/1580, 226 Fed. Appx. 630, 2007 WL 1052502 (8th Cir. April 10, 2007); Albert v. Qwest, No. 06-1251, slip op. (D. Minn. Oct. 18, 2006). Defended telecommunications company and obtained appellate decision upholding federal district court’s decision dismissing claims against client.
• Hypred, S.A. and A&L Laboratories v. Pochard, No. 04-2773, slip op. (D. Minn. March 4, 2005) (R&R recommending dismissal of claim); Hypred, S.A. and A&L Laboratories v. Pochard, No. 04-2773, slip op. (D. Minn. April 19, 2005) (order adopting R&R). Defended former executive and persuaded federal district court to grant motion to dismiss claim alleging breach of warranty provision in stock purchase agreement.
• Park Avenue of White Bear Lake, LLC v. Boo et al., No. 03-9311 (Minn. Dist. Ct. July 30, 2004); Park Avenue of White Bear Lake, LLC v. Boo et al., No. 03-9311 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Dec. 27, 2005). As counsel for investment company, obtained partial summary judgment for client on breach-of-contract claim and then summary judgment for client on damages.
• Nonin Medical, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Photo Imaging U.S.A., Inc., 381 F.Supp.2d 1069 (D. Minn. August 5, 2005). Defended electronics-manufacturing company in patent-infringement action and persuaded federal district court to grant motion for summary judgment based on noninfringement.
• Stier v. Qwest, No. 03-4996, slip op. (D. Minn. May 20, 2004). Defended telecommunications company and achieved dismissal of claims against client.
• Lettner v. Qwest, No. 02-17007 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Feb. 25, 2003). Defended telecommunications company and achieved dismissal of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claim and other claims against client. 

GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION 

Monte represents government entities in cases involving land-use, zoning, and constitutional issues. He has litigated such issues in state, federal, and appellate courts. 

• Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine, No. 21-3079, -- F.4th --, 2023 WL 5600301 (8th Cir. Aug. 30, 2023). Defended city and obtained appellate decision affirming district court's dismissal of claims alleging that city violated appellant's free speech, free exercise, and equal protection rights under United States Constitution and Minnesota Constitution, that city violated Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), and that city was liable under doctrine of promissory estoppel. The Eighth Circuit also affirmed that res judicata bars appellant's second lawsuit based on same events.

• Chey v. Metro. Airports Comm'n, No. 22-CV-1429, 2023 WL 2308272 (D. Minn. Mar. 1, 2023). Defended airport against claims alleging negligence, false advertising, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of implied contract. Persuaded district court to grant motion to dismiss all claims against airport.

• Matter of Moratzka, Tr. of Nancy L. Mayen Residual Tr., 988 N.W.2d 42 (Minn. 2023). Wrote amicus brief for MN-FISH Sportfishing Foundation to help persuade the Minnesota Supreme Court to hold that the Marketable Title Act does not operate to extinguish public interests properly dedicated by plat.

• Prior Lake Tobacco and Vape, Inc. v. City of Prior Lake, No. 70-cv-21-10726 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Dec. 16, 2021). Defended city against claims challenging validity of ordinance prohibiting sale of flavored tobacco products. Persuaded district court to grant motion to dismiss claims alleging that ordinance violated equal protection rights, was unconstitutionally vague, violated due process rights, and was an unlawful bill of attainder.
• Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine, Nos. 19-cv-1122 & 21-cv-0336, 2021 WL 4199369 (D. Minn. Sept. 15, 2021). Defended city against claims alleging that city’s decision to close limited public forum in park violated plaintiff’s right to free exercise of religion under both United States Constitution and Minnesota Constitution, violated its right to free speech under both United States Constitution and Minnesota Constitution, violated its rights under Equal Protection Clause of United States Constitution, and violated its rights under Due Process Clause of United States Constitution. Persuaded district court to grant motion for summary judgment on lone remaining claim for promissory estoppel in first lawsuit and grant motion to dismiss second lawsuit asserting claims based on same events.
• Arden Hills Tobacco, Inc. v. City of Arden Hills, No. 62-cv-19-6440 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Jan. 5, 2021). Defended city against claims challenging validity of ordinance prohibiting sale of flavored tobacco products. Persuaded district court to grant motion to dismiss claims alleging that ordinance was arbitrary and capricious, violated equal protection rights, was unconstitutionally vague, violated due process rights, was an unlawful bill of attainder, was preempted by state and federal laws, and was outside municipal police powers.
• Doe 1 v. City of Apple Valley, 487 F. Supp. 3d 761 (D. Minn. 2020). Defended city against lawsuit alleging that ordinance prohibiting certain convicted sex offenders from residing within 1500 feet of schools, child-care centers, places of worship, and parks was unconstitutional in violation of Ex Post Facto Clause. Persuaded district court to deny motion for preliminary injunction.
• Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine, 475 F. Supp. 3d 950 (D. Minn. 2020). Defended city and city councilors against claims alleging that city’s decision to close limited public forum in park violated plaintiff’s right to free exercise of religion under both United States Constitution and Minnesota Constitution, violated its right to free speech under both United States Constitution and Minnesota Constitution, violated its rights under Equal Protection Clause of United States Constitution, and violated Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act (RLUIPA). Persuaded district court to grant motion for judgment on pleadings on all claims except promissory estoppel.
• Flaten v. City of Fridley, et al., No. 02-cv-19-777 (Minn. Dist. Ct. March 27, 2020). Defended city against claims alleging negligence and mandamus related to the enforcement of municipal ordinances, and persuaded district court to grant motion for summary judgment in clients’ favor.
• Rochester City Lines Co. v. City of Rochester, No. A17-1944, 2018 WL 3716379 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2018). Defended city against claims brought by disappointed bidder regarding a contract procurement, prevailed at trial on all remaining claims, and obtained appellate decision affirming judgment in city’s favor. 
• Rochester City Lines Co. v. City of Rochester, 913 N.W.2d 443, 445 (Minn. 2018). Defended city and moderator against challenge to the denial of a pre-bid protest to request for proposals and persuaded the Minnesota Supreme Court to reverse a decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals that had invalidated the 2016 competitive-bidding process and resulting contract. On remand, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the moderator’s decision denying the pre-bid protest. See Rochester City Lines Co. v. City of Rochester, No. A16-1515, 2018 WL 4956966 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2018).
• City of Rochester v. Kottschade, 896 N.W.2d 541 (Minn. 2017). Represented city as appellant, and persuaded Minnesota Supreme Court to grant review and obtained decision reversing dismissal and remanding to stay proceeding pending arbitration.
• Keenan v. Toro Manufacturing Co. et al., No. 27-cv-16-1394 (Minn. Dist. Ct. July 15, 2016). Defended cities against claims alleging environmental contamination of property, and persuaded district court to grant motion to dismiss in clients’ favor.
• Shamp v. City of Pine River, No. 11-cv-16-479 (Minn. Dist. Ct. May 25, 2016). Defended cities and joint airport zoning board against claims that airport zoning constituted regulatory taking of the plaintiffs’ property, and persuaded district court to grant motion for judgment on the pleadings in clients’ favor.
• Palm Realty, Inc. v. City of Apple Valley, No. 19-cv-15-464 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Dec. 3, 2015). Defended city against claims brought by landowners and developers challenging fees in lieu of parkland dedication, and persuaded district court to grant motion for summary judgment in client’s favor on interpretation of development contract.
• Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester, 868 N.W.2d 655 (Minn. 2015). Defended city against claims brought by disappointed bidder regarding a contract procurement, persuaded district court to grant motion for summary judgment in client’s favor on all claims and obtained decision from Minnesota Supreme Court affirming dismissal of all claims except one. 
• O’Neill v. City of Bloomington, No. A13-1114, 2014 WL 802456 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 03, 2014). Defended city and obtained appellate decision affirming judgment in city’s favor after trial on claim that airport zoning constituted regulatory taking of the plaintiffs’ property.
• Titus v. City of Prior Lake, No. A11-1340, 2012 WL 686175 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2012). Defended city and obtained appellate decision affirming judgment in client’s favor after trial involving claim that municipal regulation was unconstitutional and affirming judgment that statute of limitations barred trespass claim.
• Ashanti v. City of Golden Valley, 666 F.3d 1148 (8th Cir. 2012). Defended city in class action and persuaded appellate court to affirm federal district court’s decision dismissing procedural-due process claim, takings claim, and unreasonable-seizure claim because res judicata barred constitutional claims.
• Community Finance Group, Inc. v. Republic of Kenya, 778 F.Supp.2d 983 (D. Minn. 2011); Community Finance Group, Inc. v. Republic of Kenya, 663 F.3d 977 (8th Cir. 2011). Defended Kenya and persuaded federal district court to grant motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and appellate court affirmed.
• Pavelka v. Enclave Development, L.L.C., No. 27-cv-11-4811 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Aug. 3, 2011). Defended city and achieved summary judgment in client’s favor on claims brought by developer.
• Helgeson Bros. P'ship v. County of Douglas, A10-100, 2010 WL 3632509 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2010). Defended city and joint airport zoning board and obtained summary judgment on regulatory-taking claim and claim of an equal protection violation, and appellate court affirmed.
• Snyder v. Snyder, No. 07-1973, 2008 WL 5060630 (8th Cir. 2008); Snyder v. Snyder, No. 06-3072, 2007 WL 894415 (D. Minn. March 21, 2007). Defended sheriff’s office and persuaded appellate court to affirm federal district court’s decision dismissing claims against client.
• Logan v. City of Maplewood, No. 62-cv-07-3673 (Minn. Dist. Ct. June 17, 2008). Defended city and obtained summary judgment in client’s favor on plaintiff’s claim that permit application was automatically approved under Minnesota Statutes § 15.99.
• Wilson v. City of Burnsville, 2007 WL 1263490 (Minn. Ct. App. May 1, 2007); Wilson v. City of Burnsville, No. C6-03-7269 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Dec. 13, 2005). Defended city and obtained appellate decision affirming summary judgment in client’s favor because the public-duty doctrine applied to the city’s provision of emergency services.
• Duy Ngo v. Storlie, No. 03-3376, 2006 WL 1579873 (D. Minn., June 2, 2006). Defended city and achieved summary judgment in client’s favor on claims under § 1983 alleging constitutional violations resulting from failure to train employees.
• Duy Ngo v. Storlie, No. 03-3376, 2006 WL 1046933 (D. Minn. April 19, 2006). Defended city and persuaded federal district court to deny plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against city based on spoliation of evidence.