2001-01-26 Harley-Davidson Response - Minnesota Judicial Branch

OFFICE OF
AppELLATE COURTS
STATE OF MINNESOTA JAN 2 6 zuu~
IN MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT
In Re: Court File No. Cl-01-l 18
TWIN CITIES HARLEY-DAVIDSON LITIGATION
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION
TO: CHIEF JUSTICE KATHLEEN BLATZ
INTRODUCTION
Respondent, Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc., opposes consolidation as requested by
counsel for defendants in various pending declaratory judgment actions. Petitioners’ motion seeks
to avoid ordinary appellate review of trial court rulings that rejected petitioners’ arguments for
consolidation. In light of petitioners’ previous motions raising issues of consolidation, and the
decisions by the trial court rejecting petitioners’ attempts at consolidation, this motion amounts to
an end run that subverts the usual protections of appellate review. For example, petitioners’ factual
representations are without the full record. Many “facts” are either untrue or misleading.
Through this motion, petitioners seek what amounts to de novo consideration of consolidation
issues decided by Dakota County Judge Robert Carolan after benefit of a full factual record and .
oral argument.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND -c
B
PREVIOUS CLASS ACTION
In September of 1998, two car salesmen sued Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, an
independent local family-owned business selling Harley Davidson motorcycles under a franchise
l -