STATE OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE OF AitifitLLATE COURTS

IN COURT OF APPEALS

JUL 2 3 2-014

FILED Timothy P. Owens, petitioner, Appellant,

ORDER A14-1024

VS.

Voyager Financial Services Corporation, et al., Respondents, William M. Dunkley, et al., Respondents.

Considered and decided by Cleary, Chief Judge; Hudson, Judge; and Reyes, Judge. BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: This appeal, filed June 18, 2014, is taken from a February 24, 2014 order denying a motion to confirm an arbitration award and granting a motion to vacate the award on grounds of evident partiality, without ordering a rehearing. On May 22, 2014, the district court issued an order denying postdecision motions, including respondents' motion to amend the order to require a rehearing before a new panel of arbitrators. The district court construed Minn. Stat. § 572B.28(a)(5) (2012) to allow but not require it to direct a

rehearing and stated that it would not limit [appellant's] opportunity to appeal by ordering a rehearing in this matter." An appeal may be taken from such orders or decisions as may be appealable by statute or under the decisions of the Minnesota appellate courts. Arbitration appeals are governed by Minnesota's uniform arbitration act, which allows, as relevant here, an appeal from an order "confirming or denying confirmation of an award," or "an order vacating an award without directing a rehearing." Minn. Stat. § 572B.28(a)(3), (5) (2012). An order vacating an arbitration award and directing a rehearing is not appealable. Metro. Airports Comm'n v. Metro. Airports Police Fed'n, 443 N.W.2d 519, 523 (Minn. 1989); Minn. Teamsters Pub. & Law Enforcement Emps. Union, Local No. 320 v. Cnty. of Carver, 571 N.W.2d 598, 599 (Minn. App. 1997); Kowler Assocs. v. Ross, 544 N.W.2d 800, 801 (Minn. App. 1996). The district court declined to order a rehearing, and appellant asserts that this renders the district court's order appealable under the plain language of the statute. Even if an order is within a category of orders that may be appealed, however, under Minnesota caselaw, an order of the district court is not appealable if it is not final. Emme v. C.O.MB., Inc., 418 N.W.2d 176, 178 (Minn. 1988); see also Weinzierl v. Lien, 296 Minn. 539, 540, 209 N.W.2d 424, 424 (1973) (holding that "an order is not appealable unless in effect it finally determines the action or finally determines some positive legal right of the appellant relating to the action"). Minnesota has a policy against piecemeal appeals. Emme, 418 N.W.2d at 179. Absent some exception to this policy, "appellate

2

jurisdiction has been generally understood to mean that, in all judicial proceedings, the judgment which finally determines the rights of the parties is subject to review by this court." Id. at 178 (quotation omitted). We conclude that neither the February 24, 2014 order nor the February 26, 2014 judgment is final and thus that a direct appeal was premature. But that does not end our analysis. Under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 105.01, this court may allow an appeal from an order otherwise not appealable, except an order made during trial, upon the petition of a party served within 30 days of the filing of the order. Because this appeal was filed within 30 days of the district court's order denying postdecision motions, we will construe it as a petition for discretionary review under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 105.01. See, e.g., Metro. Airports Comm'n, 443 N.W.2d 519, 523 (Minn. 1989) (recognizing discretion of court of appeals to accept appeals from order not appealable under uniform arbitration act or appellate rules). Interlocutory appeals are generally disfavored. Gordon v. Microsoft Corp., 645 N.W.2d 393, 398 (Minn. 2002). When ruling on a petition for discretionary review, this court considers, among other factors, whether the challenged ruling is vested in the district court's discretion, whether the ruling is questionable or involves an unsettled area of the law, the impact of the ruling on the petitioning party's ability to proceed, the importance of the legal issue presented, whether appellate review would benefit from the development of a more complete record or the ruling would be reviewable on appeal from a final judgment, and the specific circumstances of the case. See Minn. R. Civ.

3

App. P. 105.01 (authorizing court to accept appeals in the interest of justice); Gordon v. Microsoft Corp., 645 N.W.2d 393, 399-402 (Minn. 2002) (addressing factors appropriately considered in deciding petitions for discretionary review). Having considered these factors, we conclude that discretionary review is appropriate in this case. Appellant seeks to challenge the district court's determinations that there was evident partiality by an arbitrator and that such partiality by one member of the panel required vacatur of a final award issued by the remaining two arbitrators. Both inquiries implicate legal issues that will be subject to de novo review. See Michael-Curry Cos. v. Knutson Shareholders Liquidating Trust, 449 N.W.2d 139, 141 (Minn. 1989) (providing for de novo review of interpretation of arbitration agreement); Khawaja v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 631 N.W.2d 106, 112 (Minn. App. 2001) (same for interpretation of uniform arbitration act); Pirsig v. Pleasant Mound Mut. Fire. Ins. Co., 512 N.W.2d 342, 344 (Minn. App. 1994) (-Whether the conduct challenged constitutes 'evident partiality' is reviewed de novo."). Importantly, these issues will not be reviewable in an appeal from a final judgment after a rehearing. See Cnty. of Carver, 571 N.W.2d at 599-600 (explaining that an "order vacating the original award and directing a rehearing is not reviewable on appeal from a judgment confirming the second award"). And, although not dispositive, we are mindful of the district court's intent that the ruling be reviewed on an interlocutory basis. Under the specific circumstances of this case, we conclude that discretionary review is warranted.

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1.

This appeal is construed as a petition for discretionary review under Minn.

R. Civ. App. P. 105.01. 2.

Discretionary review is granted.

3.

The appeal shall be deemed filed on June 18, 2014, and shall proceed in

accordance with the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. 4.

The clerk of appellate courts shall provide copies of this order to the

Honorable Thomas M. Sipkins, to counsel of record, and to the district court administrator. Dated: July 22, 2014 BY THE COURT

Edward J. Clea Chief Judge

5

(6,