Mary Cocchiarella v. Donald Driggs, 870 N.W.2d 103 (2015)

Citation: Mary Cocchiarella v. Donald Driggs, 870 N.W.2d 103 (2015)
Parent Document: Mary Cocchiarella v. Donald Driggs, 870 N.W.2d 103 (2015)
Jurisdiction: Minnesota (state)
Effective Date: 2015-09-08
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2898011/mary-cocchiarella-v-donald-driggs/ ↗

Full Text

1,046 chars

1
        Cocchiarella also argues that the district court erred by denying her motion to
strike portions of a memorandum of law that Driggs submitted to the district court.
Cocchiarella argued to the district court that Driggs had referred to facts that were not in
the record created in the housing court. See Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 611(a) (“A judge’s
review of a decision recommended by the referee shall be based upon the record
established before the referee.”). The district court denied Cocchiarella’s motion to strike
in its October 2014 order, without analysis or explanation. But in its ruling on the merits
of Driggs’s motion, the district court did not consider or rely on any facts that were not in
the housing court record. Furthermore, we are affirming the district court’s ruling that
Cocchiarella cannot prevail on her claim for possession under section 504B.375 because
she was not a “residential tenant” when she commenced this action. Thus, the district
court’s denial of Cocchiarella’s motion to strike is not reversible error.

Other Sections in This Document (197)

Full Text