Bloomington, MN
Lawsuits and disputes Lawyer at Bloomington, MN
Practice Areas: Lawsuits & Disputes, Litigation ... +3 more
OUTCOME: Successful plea negotiations for client with the County of Washington prosecutor
Client was charged with Domestic Assault-Misdemeanor following argument over an unruly dog. Plea was negotiated for an amended charge of disorderly conduct with favorable terms for Client.
OUTCOME: The case is on appeal before the Minnesota Supreme Court following a victory for Plaintiffs at the Court of Appeals August 2025. A decision is expected in the fall 2026
Two public housing residents living in substandard rental dwellings in the City of Minneapolis, brought suit in state court against the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority ... in September 2021. The plaintiff-residents seek to require the City to provide 10,500 public housing residents in 6,000 rental units with the same public services the City provides to all residents living in privately owned rental dwellings. The public services at issue consist of City housing code inspections and enforcement of City codes at public housing dwellings, with mandatory rental licensing of the Public Housing properties and systematic code inspections by city code inspectors to ensure the public housing is complaint with all housing, fire, safety and health laws. The case presents egregious discriminatory practices that have forced public housing residents in Minneapolis to endure hazardous and appalling housing conditions for decades. John R. Shoemaker and Paul F. Shoemaker of Shoemaker & Shoemaker, PLLC, jointly represent public housing families with the Minneapolis law firm of Nichols Kaster and attorney and law professor Lawrence R. McDonough, in the class action lawsuit. After filing the civil rights lawsuit September 7, 2021, we successfully obtained remand of the state court action from United States Federal Court on July 15, 2022, and an order denying a motion to dismiss the claims filed by MPHA on January 3, 2023. Following the first phase of discovery, MPHA, and subsequently the City, each sought dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims through summary judgment motions. Judge Patrick Robben initially assigned to the case, issued an order October 3, 2023, dismissing a portion of Plaintiffs’ claims against MPHA - those claims related to City licensing and licensing inspections. The case was reassigned to Judge Rachna Sullivan. On November 30, 2023, the City moved for summary judgment claiming governmental immunity. On May 10, 2024, Judge Sullivan held that the City is not immune from suit for its failure to conduct routine City housing code inspections of MPHA rental properties. The City filed its appeal with the Minnesota Court of Appeals on May 24, 2024. On Plaintiffs' motion, Judge Sullivan certified the October 2023 Order so Plaintiffs could also appeal, with Plaintiffs' appeal filed on December 5, 2024. The appeals were then consolidated, issues briefed and oral arguments presented to the appellate court. On August 18, 2025, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued an opinion holding that neither the City nor MPHA are immune from suit with respect to the claims in this case, upending 33 years of the City’s and MPHA’s failure to provide public housing residents with the services and quality of housing the law requires. Following the Court of Appeals' decision in favor of the Plaintiffs against both the City and MPHA, only MPHA sought relief from the Minnesota Supreme Court; the court granted MPHA's petition for review of the Court of Appeals' decision related to MPHA. MPHA and the Plaintiffs submitted briefs in early 2026 and oral argument was held April 7, 2026, before the seven justices on the high court. A decision is expected in the fall of 2026.
OUTCOME: Obtained Court of Appeals' decision that for first time provides public housing residents with same city public services as residents occupying privately-owned rental dwellings have received for decades. A settlement was approved by the court.
Through representation by John R. Shoemaker of Shoemaker & Shoemaker, PLLC, Ms. Marable and her family as residents in city public housing, brought civil rights claims against the City of Minneapolis f ... or wrongful denial of public services based on the family's public assistance status. Ms. Marable also included claims against her landlord, the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority (MPHA), for hazardous, substandard housing that was non-compliant with the City Housing Maintenance Code and state codes, and failure of MPHA to make proper repairs. Two of the MPHA rental homes occupied by the Marable family were substandard including having invasive mold, multiple open electrical hazards and many other city code deficiencies impacting the family's health and safety. As a direct result of Marable's civil rights lawsuit, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a 39-page written opinion on May 11, 2020, holding that MPHA was subject to the Minneapolis Housing Maintenance Code, and the City of Minneapolis was, under state law, the "local authority" responsible for enforcement of the local and state housing code requirements against the MPHA and its 6,000 rental units occupied by 10,500 residents. The Court of Appeals rejected arguments by the city and public housing that MPHA inspections required by federal law preempted local and state code compliance requirements and prohibited the City from inspecting MPHA dwellings. Thus, for the first time since the City began inspecting dwellings in the 1980s, the City was forced to provide city housing maintenance code inspections to public housing residents when public housing residents voiced complaints to the city about substandard and non-code compliant conditions within their publicly owned rental dwellings. Minnesota Court of Appeals' Opinion: https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2020/OPa191558-051120.pdf. Minneapolis Star Tribune: https://www.startribune.com/appeals-court-city-inspectors-must-enforce-code-violations-in-minneapolis-public-housing/570490412/
OUTCOME: Successfully opposed City's motion for judgment. On City's appeal, successfully argued before the Minnesota Court of Appeals resulting in a decision affirming the denial of judgment for the City.
Residential landlord brought suit against the City of Minneapolis claiming city fire inspector had issued orders without complying with the Minneapolis Code of Ordinance requirements for proper notice ... to a property owner. The City of Minneapolis sought summary judgment before trial, the landlord opposed the motion, and the district court ruled in landlord's favor. The City of Minneapolis then challenged the denial of its summary-judgment motion on the ground of official immunity against the landlords' claims arising out of unlawful orders of claimed fire-code violations. The Court of Appeals agreed the inspector's conduct was ministerial in nature and that the City was not immune from suit and remanded the case to the trial court. The case was subsequently resolved.
OUTCOME: The parties participated in arbitration of their claims before the American Arbitration Association.
Landlord management company sued to force immediate removal of commercial tenant occupying City terminal warehouse. Represented Therma Spray, Inc. and forced compliance with an arbitration clause with ... in the parties' written agreement. The court ordered a stay of the removal action and ordered the parties to arbitration.
OUTCOME: Claims and defenses were settled prior to trial.
A civil action was brought in state district court to force a sale of a home co-owned by the parties.
OUTCOME: Matter was settled prior to trial with the assistance of The Honorable Michael K. Browne, Judge of Hennepin County District Court
Family real estate dispute concerning title to land located in the heart of the University of Minnesota.
OUTCOME: The Minnesota Supreme Court held for tenant. I co-counseled this case with Attorney Joel Van Nurden.
Tenant raised statutory habitability defense to landlord's action to evict tenant and claimed no written notice of repair deficiencies in rental unit was required to be provided to landlord.
OUTCOME: Matter was settled prior to trial.
Defended St. Paul, Mn restaurant against claims that the owners made renovations that did not comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Restaurant asserted that (a) ... The renovations did not constitute alterations; (b) restaurant satisfied the maximum extent feasible standard; (c) Plaintiff’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations; (d) In the case of a path of travel, the alterations sought would be disproportionate to the cost of the overall alteration where the cost exceeds 20% of the cost of the overall alteration; (e) the alteration sought was technically infeasible.
OUTCOME: Settled through mediation before trial
Client sustained bodily injuries on an International Flight and brought personal injury claims
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
