Fergus Falls HRA Memorandum Supporting Summary Judgment (May 26, 2026)

Accessible document transcript

[Page 1]
4928-7269-8285 v.1
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Stephen Roy Svendsen,
Plaintiff,
v.
Pamela J. Minten, Ken Laney, Mikel B.
Olson, Fergus Falls HRA, Chris Harig,
Ryan Muchow, and City of Fergus Falls,
Defendants.


Case No.: 56- CV-24-1426
Case Type: Civil Other/Misc.
Judge:  Kevin M. Miller
DEFENDANT FERGUS FALLS HRA’S
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION
Summary judgment in Defendant Fergus Falls HRA’s (the “HRA”) favor is appropriate
because (1) pro se Plaintiff Stephen Svendsen (“Plaintiff”) had repeated material breaches of
the lease agreement  throughout his tenancy, precluding a contract claim by him against the
HRA, (2) the HRA complied with the terms of the Lease in non-renewing it based on Plaintiff’s
material noncompliance with the Lease, and (3) Plaintiff has not produced sufficient evidence
to sustain his claim of damages.
Plaintiff agreed that the HRA may terminate his lease for repeated violations, including
any activity that the HRA determined may threaten the health, safety or right to peaceful
enjoyment of the premises of any person on the premises, including guests, neighbors, HRA
employees, or vendors. The evidence establishes that Plaintiff fixated on his various perceived
issues around the premises and, as a result, badgered other tenants, HRA staff, and third parties
such as HRA contractors. Upon review of the undisputed evidence, reasonable minds can
arrive at only one conclusion: Plaintiff repeatedly breached the Lease with his misconduct in
56-CV-24-1426 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
5/26/2026 5:57 PM

[Page 2]
2
4928-7269-8285 v.1
(1) threatening the rights of other tenants and HRA  staff and contractors to sa fety or right to
peaceful enjoyment of the premises and (2) interfering with the HRA’s management of the
premises. Since the undisputed evidence shows Plaintiff repeatedly  had material breaches of
the Lease through his conduct well before the non- renewal, this Court should grant judgment
in the HRA’s favor and dismiss Plaintiff’s contract claim with prejudice.
Beyond the breach issue, the HRA is further entitled to judgment as a matter of law
because Plaintiff has failed to prove that he suffered any damages from an alleged breach of
the Lease by the HRA. Plaintiff cannot rely upon unsupported conclusory allegations.
Summary judgment is mandatory against a party who fails to establish an essential element of
the claim. This Court should further grant the HRA’s motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s claim with
prejudice because Plai ntiff has failed to establish any damages – an essential element to his
claim.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The HRA serves low-income families as well as individuals who are elderly, disabled,
or require home healthcare. See  Ex. 16 to Decl. of Pamela J. Minten (“Minten Decl.”) at ¶ 3.
Plaintiff first entered a lease with the HRA on or around February 1, 2018, to rent Unit # 606
located at 205 North Sheridan, Fergus Falls, Minnesota 56537 (the “Premises”). Plaintiff then
entered into a lease agreement (the “Lease”) with the HRA to rent Unit # 401 at the Premises
on or around December 3, 2020. See Ex. 1 attached to Pl.’s Aff. (Index # 2). Plaintiff agreed
that the HRA was entitled to terminate the Lease for serious or repeated violations of material
terms of the Lease, such as, but not limited to:
Any activity on or off the Premises engaged in by the Tenant … even in the
absence of an arrest or conviction, that Fergus Falls HRA determines may
threaten the health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of the Premises of any
56-CV-24-1426 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
5/26/2026 5:57 PM

[Page 3]
3
4928-7269-8285 v.1
person on the Premises, Tenant Family, Guest, neighbor, or Fergus Falls HRA’s
employee or vendor.
See Ex. 1 at p. 10 (Index # 2).
 S ince Plaintiff moved to  the Premises, Plaintiff  regularly created conflict  over
innocuous issues . See Ex. 16 to Minten Decl. at ¶ 6. Plaintiff repeatedly  confronted and
complained about his neighboring tenants , other residents , and various  individuals in and
around the Premises. See id. Plaintiff also harassed the HRA’s staff regarding other tenants at
the Premises and the HRA’s security  around the Premises, as well as interfered with
contractors performing work onsite by confronting and challenging them . See id. at ¶¶ 8 and
11-16. In short, Plaintiff was a persistently difficult and disruptive tenant. See id. at ¶ 6.
 For instance, Plaintiff complained to the Housing Manager at the HRA, Pamela Minten,
that another tenant was not wearing a mask and that Plaintiff was allegedly “being stalking
because of [his] history in Minneapolis as a Christian and the people migrating [to Fergus
Falls].” See Ex. 1 to Minten Decl. Plaintiff reported the alleged stalking to the Fergus Falls
Police Department and then  badgered Ms. Minten about the HRA’s process for inquiring “if
people are current or past members Black Lives Matter or ANTIFA when they move in.” Id.
at p. 1. Plaintiff repeatedly hounded the HRA with alleged concerns about Black Lives Matter
and ANTIFA members again on November 10 and 16, 2020. See Exs. 2 and 3 to Minten Decl.
 Plaintiff then inundated the HRA with a barrage of petty gripes about his neighbor’s
dog. See Ex. 4 to Minten Decl . Plaintiff confronted Ms. Minten about this issue on February
17, 2021; February 22, 2021; February 24, 2021; February 25, 2021; and March 15, 2021. See
id. Plaintiff even called the police when his neighbor’s dog was barking for merely 15 minutes.
See id. at pp. 9-10.
56-CV-24-1426 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
5/26/2026 5:57 PM

[Page 4]
4
4928-7269-8285 v.1
 Plaintiff also repeatedly hectored Ms. Minten with baseless and minor concerns about
people around the Premises, including alleged “terroristic threat,” “security related suspicious
events,” and “a prolonged threatened glare.” See Ex. 5 to Minten Decl. Plaintiff’s complaints
were illusory.  For example, Plaintiff  burdened the HRA with a complaint of an individual
simply walking by the front of the building as well as another individual  walking “within 10
feet of [him] and in front of [his] field of vision.” See id. at pp. 1 and 4.
 On June 7, 2021, the Executive Director of the HRA, Mikel Olson, and Ms. Minten met
with the Fergus Falls Police Chief to address Plaintiff’s issues with certain individuals around
the Premises. See Ex. 6 to Minten Decl. The Police Chief confirmed that he had  not received
similar complaints from anyone else . See id.  After this meeting, Plaintiff’s irrational and
disruptive complaints about the HRA’s tenants, employees, and contractors continued.
For example, in October of 2021, Plaintiff approached contractors hired by the HRA,
Kevin Jarhardsen and his employee, and walked into the unit which they were working in and
accosted them about the noise they were making. See Ex. 7 to Minten Decl. Because of
Plaintiff’s disruptiveness, Mr. Jarhardsen contacted Ms. Minten and Mr. Olson about
Plaintiff’s interruption of his work on the Premises. See id.
 As another example, throughout 2021, Plaintiff also regularly hounded Ms. Mint en
about items simply being placed in the common areas of the Premises . See Exs. 8 and 9 to
Minten Decl. Plaintiff complained to Ms. Minten regarding items placed in common areas on
June 18, 2021; July 1, 2021; August 18, 2021; September 13, 2021, November 2, 2021, and
April 12, 2022. See Ex. 8. For example,  Plaintiff repeatedly complained and nagged of a
neighboring tenant putting a rubber duck on a table in a common area as well as a “fish shrine”
(which was Big Mouth Billy Bass), “bird shrine,” pine cone, and a small fake dog outside the
56-CV-24-1426 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
5/26/2026 5:57 PM

[Page 5]
5
4928-7269-8285 v.1
tenant’s own door. See id. at p p. 1, 4, and 13. Plaintiff filed a police report against his
neighboring tenant for allegedly “set[ting] up shrines to worship [evil spirits] and attract them
in the common area hallway and common area elevator lobby.” See id. at p. 11. Plaintiff even
threatened Ms. Minten “I think there are potential complications including for management if
[placing items on the hallway floor] continues which seems possible.” See id. at p. 13.
Furthermore, Plaintiff repeatedly needled Ms. Minten about a neighbor’s medical alarm
and other sounds, such as complaints on August 16, 2022; August 31, 2022; and September
12, 2022. See Exs. 10 and 11 to Minten Decl . On September 12, 2022, Plaintiff called the
HRA’s Maintenance Supervisor, Ken Laney, after 9:00 p.m. and requested that he take care of
a medical alarm from a neighboring tenant. See Ex. 11. Plaintiff then threatened Ms. Minten
that he would be “performing an investigation to file an advisory police report” on September
13, 2022, regarding an alleged unattended medical alarm for another tenant. See Ex. 10 at p.
3. Plaintiff proceeded to badger Jim Salentine—the CEO of  New Dimensions, which is an
organization that renders services to the HRA’s tenants—demanding the names of New
Dimensions’ patients despite Mr. Salentine informing him that information was confidential.
See Ex. 12 to Minten Decl. Plaintiff then confronted an employee of New Dimensions, Megan
Schultz, regarding a medical alarm in his neighbor’s apartment. See Ex. 13 to Minten Decl .
Plaintiff proceeded to badger Ms. Schultz requesting confidential information regarding New
Dimensions’ patients and demanding that New Dimensions do something regarding the
medical alarm. See id.  Ms. Schultz  felt that Plaintiff “was very rude and made staff
uncomfortable” and documented that this was the second time staff had such an encounter with
Plaintiff. See id.
56-CV-24-1426 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
5/26/2026 5:57 PM

[Page 6]
6
4928-7269-8285 v.1
In follow up, on September 14, 2022, Plaintiff next extended his haranguing to the
Fergus Falls Fire Department, requesting a report regarding an inspection of the Premises on
July 2, 2021. See Ex. 14 to Minten Decl. (833).  Plaintiff also demanded statements from Mr.
Olson and Ms. Minten regarding the fire inspection. See Ex. 15 to Minten Decl.
As a result of Plaintiff’s repeated misconduct, and incessant disruptions, throughout his
tenancy towards neighboring tenants, HRA staff, and HRA contractors, the HRA notified
Plaintiff that it was not renewing his Lease. See  Ex. 6 attached to Pl.’s Aff. (Index # 2).
Although the initial notice was less specific, in an amended non- renewal notice, the HRA
specifically notified Plaintiff that it was non -renewing his Lease for numerous material
breaches of the same, including “[r]epeated harassment” of other residents, employees, and
contractors.  See id. at Exs. 5-6 (Index # 2).
Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit alleging numerous claims against the HRA, the City of
Fergus Falls, and a number of their employees. See generally Pl.’s Am. Compl. (Index # 36).
After the HRA’s motion to dismiss, this Court determined that Plaintiff’s claim that the HRA
breached the Lease by non-renewing the Lease survived the motion to dismiss stage. See Order
and Memorandum at p. 28 (Index # 96). Despite being requested to itemize and provide
documentation supporting Plaintiff’s claimed damages for moving expenses, Plaintiff has
failed to provide any support for his claimed damages and solely relied on his conclusory
allegations in his Amended Complaint. See Ex. 1 to Decl. of Jack M. Buck (“Buck Decl.”) at
pp. 24 (Interrog. No. 15) and 39 (Req. for Prod. No. 13).
56-CV-24-1426 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
5/26/2026 5:57 PM

[Page 7]
7
4928-7269-8285 v.1
III. LAW AND ARGUMENT
A. Standard of Review.
Rule 56.01 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may move
for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense on which summary judgment is
sought. The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Minn.R.Civ.P. 56.01.
“[I]t needs to be remembered that a purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to
separate the wheat from the chaff and relieve the court system of the burden and expense of
unfounded litigation.” Cook v. Connolly, 366 N.W.2d 287, 292 (Minn. 1985); see also Home
Mut. Ins. Co. v. Snyder , 356 N.W.2d 780, 783 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984) (Summary judgment
serves a salutary purpose of avoiding useless and time consuming trials). Summary judgment
is appropriate when the parties do not dispute material facts and a determination of the
applicable law will resolve the controversy. Com. Union Ins. Co. v. Minn. Sch. Bd. Ass’n, 600
N.W.2d 475, 478 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999) ; see also Curtis v. Klausler , 802 N.W.2d 790, 793
(Minn. Ct. App. 2011) (A fact question for the jury becomes a question of law and may be
disposed of by summary judgment where reasonable minds can arrive at only one conclusion).
Once the moving party has made a prima facie case that entitles it to summary
judgment, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce specific facts that raise a genuine
issue for trial. Bebo v. Delander, 632 N.W.2d 732, 737 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). The nonmoving
party may not rely upon mere averments in the pleadings or unsupported allegations but must
come forward with specific facts to satisfy its burden of production. Id. Summary judgment is
56-CV-24-1426 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
5/26/2026 5:57 PM

[Page 8]
8
4928-7269-8285 v.1
mandatory against a party who fails to establish an essential element of the claim, if that party
has the burden of proof, because this failure renders all other facts immaterial. Id.
Upon the HRA’s motion to dismiss, this Court determined that Plaintiff’s claim that the
HRA breached the Lease by non-renewing the Lease survived the motion to dismiss stage. See
Order and Memorandum at p. 28 (Index # 96). Judgment as a matter of law in the HRA’s favor
is appropriate because: (1) there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact that Plaintiff
materially breached the Lease first, barring any contract claim by him, (2) there is no genuine
dispute that the HRA properly nonrenewed the Lease in light of those material breaches by
Plaintiff, and (3) Plaintiff has failed to come forward with specific facts or evidence sufficient
at the summary judgment stage to demonstrate any alleged damages.
B. Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim fails as a matter of law because the
undisputed facts establish that Plaintiff materially breached the Lease first.
Plaintiff’s contract claim fails because Plaintiff breached the Lease first through his
conduct in continuously harassing and pestering other residents, HRA staff, and HRA
contractors throughout his tenancy. To prevail on a breach-of- contract claim, Plaintiff must
prove: (1) formation of a contract; (2) performance by plaintiff of any conditions precedent to
his right to demand performance by the defendant; and (3) breach of the contract by defendant.
Lyon Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Ill. Paper and Copier Co., 848 N.W.2d 539, 543 (Minn. 2014). A
breach of contract occurs when contract performance is hindered or rendered impossible by
the other party. Zobel & Dahl Constr. v . Crotty , 356 N.W.2d 42, 45 (Minn. 1984).
Interpretation of contract language is a question of law for the court to determine. Krollman v.
City of Hibbing, 550 N.W.2d 314, 316 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). When the contract language is
unambiguous, courts enforce the parties’ agreement as expressed in the language of the
56-CV-24-1426 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
5/26/2026 5:57 PM

[Page 9]
9
4928-7269-8285 v.1
contract, and do not rewrite, modify, or limit its effect by a strained construction. Kuhn v.
Dunn, 8 N.W.3d 633, 637 (Minn. 2024).
“A r ule in the law of contracts is that a party cannot raise to its advantage a breach of
contract against another party when it has first breached the contract itself.” MTS Co. v. Taiga
Corp., 365 N.W.2d 321, 327 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). Under general contract law, a party who
first breaches a contract is precluded from successfully claiming against the other party. See
Carlson Real Est. Co. v. Soltan, 549 N.W.2d 376, 379- 80 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996) (citing 17A
C.J.S. Contracts § 458 (1963) (“a party who commits the first breach is *** deprived of the
right to complain of a subsequent breach by the opposite party”). The first breach serves as a
defense against the subsequent breach. Id.  Put another way, “A rule in the law of contracts is
that a party cannot raise to its advantage a breach of contract against another party when it has
first breached the contract itself. ” MTS Co., 365 N.W.2d at 327; see also Kuhn, 8 N.W.3d at
640-41 (defining “ a ‘m aterial breach ’ is a breach that goes to the essence of the parties'
agreement, affecting the purpose of the contract in a vital way”).
This general rule applies with particular force in this case.  A landlord may terminate
any tenancy in a subsidized project upon: (1) material noncompliance with the rental
agreement. See 24 C.F.R. § 247.3(a). The term “material noncompliance” with the rental
agreement includes: (1) one or more substantial violations of the rental agreement and (2)
repeated minor violations of the rental agreement that: (i) disrupt the livability of the pr oject,
(ii) adversely affect the health or safety of any person or the right of any tenant to the quiet
enjoyment of the leased premises and related project facilities, (iii) interfere with the
management of the project, or (iv) have an adverse financial effect on the project. See 24 C.F.R.
§ 247.3(c).
56-CV-24-1426 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
5/26/2026 5:57 PM

[Page 10]
10
4928-7269-8285 v.1
In this case, Plaintiff repeatedly engaged in disruptive and confrontational conduct that
disrupted the livability of the project, adversely affected the health and safety of other tenants,
employees, and third parties, and interfered with the HRA’s management of the property and
its ability to operate the project safely and effectively. Plaintiff’s conduct therefore constituted
“material noncompliance” under 24 C.F.R. § 247.3(c), as well as material violations of the
Lease itself.
In fact, Plaintiff agreed that the HRA may terminate the Lease for serious or repeated
violations of material terms of the Lease, such as, but not limited to:
Any activity on or off the Premises engaged in by the Tenant … even in the
absence of an arrest or conviction, that Fergus Falls HRA determines may
threaten the health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of the Premises of any
person on the Premises, Tenant Family, Guest, neighbor, or Fergus Falls HRA’s
employee or vendor.
See Ex. 1 at p. 10 (Index # 2) ; see also 24 C.F.R. § 247.3. Plaintiff repeatedly and materially
breached the Lease as demonstrated through numerous examples of his conduct threatening
the safety and right to peaceful enjoyment of the Premises of other residents, HRA staff, and
HRA vendors or contractors. Plaintiff’s misconduct likewise disrupted the livability of other
tenants at the Premises and interfered with the HRA’s management of the Premises.
 First, Plaintiff disrupted the safety, livability, and right to peaceful enjoyment of other
tenants by baselessly alleging that he was being stalked by members of Black Lives Matter
and ANTIFA. See Ex. 1 to Minten Decl. Plaintiff also complained of other individuals simply
being around him as committing a “terroristic threat,” “security related suspicious events,” and
“a prolonged threatened glare.” See  Ex. 5 to Minten Decl. Furthermore, Plaintiff repeatedly
griped about other tenants’ conduct in merely living at the Premises. Plaintiff complained of a
tenant’s dog barking on numerous occasions and even called the police when the dog barked
56-CV-24-1426 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
5/26/2026 5:57 PM

[Page 11]
11
4928-7269-8285 v.1
for fifteen (15) minutes. See Ex. 4 to Minten Decl. Plaintiff also repeatedly complained about
another tenant’s medical alarm. See Exs. 10 and 11 to Minten Decl. Plaintiff even complained
about other tenants placing harmless décor in the common areas around the Premises. See Ex.
8 to Minten Decl. For example, Plaintiff complained about a rubber duck placed on a table in
the common area as well as pine cones and a small fake dog placed in the hallway outside the
tenant’s door. See id.
Plaintiff chose to live at the  Premises – a multi-family residential building. Plaintiff
then disrupted the safety, livability, and right to peaceful enjoyment of the other tenants at the
multi-family Premises by complaining about and reporting other tenants  to the police for
simply residing at the Premises. The other tenants could not: walk near Plaintiff, look at
Plaintiff, have their dog bark or their medical alarm beep around Plaintiff, or simply place
décor in a common area without Plaintiff accusing them of being a terror ist supposedly
threatening him or filing a baseless claim against them to the police and/or fire department.
Second, Plaintiff interfered with the HRA’s management of the Premises through his
misconduct towards Ms. Minten, the HRA’s Housing Manager. Plaintiff continuously pestered
Ms. Minten on the HRA’s security measures, including whether the HRA currently has a
process for inquiring “if people are current or past members Black Lives Matter or ANTIFA
when they move in,” requesting the HRA install “no trespassing” signs, and requesting security
footage. See Ex. 1 at p. 1; see also Ex. 5 at pp. 2- 3. The email corr espondence demonstrates
that Plaintiff would continually pester Ms. Minten about his perceived issues at the Premises
on a weekly, if not daily, basis for each particular issue. See  Exs. 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11 to
Minten Decl. First, Plaintiff pestered Ms. Minten about the neighboring tenant’s dog barking,
then it was alleged terroristic threats and suspicious events around the Premises, then it was
56-CV-24-1426 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
5/26/2026 5:57 PM

[Page 12]
12
4928-7269-8285 v.1
other residents placing décor to Plaintiff’s displeasure around the common areas, and finally,
it was a neighboring tenant’s medical alarm. See id. Notably, Ms. Minten and the Fergus Falls
Police Department did not receive any other complaints like Plaintiff’s complaints. See Ex. 6
to Minten Decl.
Third, Plaintiff threatened and interfered with the safety of the HRA’s vendors and
contractors at the Premises and their right to peaceful enjoyment of the Premises. Specifically,
Plaintiff interrupted the HRA’s contractor, Kevin Jarhardsen, when he was working in another
unit at the Premises. See Ex. 7 to Minten Decl. Plaintiff then questioned Mr. Jarhardsen about
the noise of his work and how long he would be working in the unit - which was not Plaintiff’s
unit. See id. Plaintiff’s interference with contractors was not an isolated incident. Plaintiff also
confronted New Dimension’s employee, Megan Schultz, when she was on the Premises
working with a patient who had a medical alarm. See Ex. 13 to Minten Decl. Plaintiff then
badgered Ms. Schultz requesting confidential information regarding New Dimensions’
patients and demanding that New Dimensions do something regarding the medical alarm. See
id. Ms. Schultz felt that Plaintiff “was very rude and made staff uncomfortable” and
documented that this was the second time staff had such an encounter with Plaintiff. See id.
Based upon the undisputed evidence provided by the HRA, reasonable minds can arrive
at only one conclusion: Plaintiff ’s misconduct towards other residents, HRA staff, and HRA
contractors materially breached Clause 16(12) of the Lease.  As Plaintiff’s misconduct in
breach of the Lease was the justification for the Lease not being renewed, Plaintiff’s
misconduct in question clearly occurred prior to any alleged breach with the non-renewal. See
Ex. 6 attached to Pl.’s Aff. (Index # 2).
56-CV-24-1426 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
5/26/2026 5:57 PM

[Page 13]
13
4928-7269-8285 v.1
Under settled Minnesota law, Plaintiff cannot maintain a breach of contract claim where
he was the first party to materially breach the Lease. See Carlson Real Est. Co, 549 N.W.2d at
379-80. The record demonstrates that Plaintiff repeatedly engaged in disruptive,
confrontational, and interfering conduct that undermined the livability of the project, adversely
affected other tenants, employees, and third parties, and materially interfered with the HRA’s
management of the property. These were not isolated or technical violations. Rather, Plaintiff’s
repeated conduct went directly to the core purposes of the Lease and subsidized housing
arrangement: maintaining a safe, habitable, and properly managed residential environment for
all residents.  See, e.g., MTS Co., 365 N.W.2d at 327.
Plaintiff’s repeated violations therefore constituted “material noncompliance” under 24
C.F.R. § 247.3(c) and material breaches of the Lease itself. Having first materially breached
the Lease, Plaintiff cannot now seek to impose liability on Defendants for  subsequent actions
taken in response to Plaintiff’s own conduct. Minnesota’s first material breach doctrine bars
such claims as a matter of law.  See Carlson Real Est. Co, 549 N.W.2d at 379-80. The
undisputed facts demonstrating Plaintiff’s misconduct in violation of the Lease prior to any
alleged breach with the non- renewal dictate that this Court grant the HRA’s motion, enter
judgment as a matter of law in favor of the HRA, and dismiss Plaintiff’s breach of contract
claim with prejudice.
C. For the same reasons, the HRA complied with the terms of the Lease in
nonrenewing it based on Plaintiff’s repeated material breaches throughout
his tenancy.
In its prior Order on the Motion to Dismiss, the Court artfully articulated the rules for
the HRA’s nonrenewal of the Lease.  As the Court explained, proper grounds include (1)
material noncompliance with the lease and (2) other good cause. 24 C.F.R. § 247.3(a).
56-CV-24-1426 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
5/26/2026 5:57 PM

[Page 14]
14
4928-7269-8285 v.1
Material noncompliance includes not only a single substantial violation, but also repeated
minor violations that disrupt the livability of the project or interfere with its management.  See
id. § 247.3(c).  More specifically, the undisputed record evidence shows Plaintiff materially
breached Section 16(12) of the Lease, barring activity (whether or not criminal) that disturbs
the safety or peaceful enjoyment of others, by his incessant confrontations and complaints
about innocuous matters to neighbors, the HRA staff, and third parties.  See Ex. 1 at p. 10
(Index # 2); see also 24 C.F.R. § 247.3.
Under these circumstances, as described in greater detail above, the HRA was within
its rights to non-renew the Plaintiff’s Lease.
D. Plaintiff has failed to ascertain any damages that he allegedly sustained as
a result of the alleged breach of the Lease.
Even if this Court determines there is a factual dispute whether the Lease was breached,
the HRA is still entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Plaintiff has failed to prove
that he suffered any damages from the alleged breach. Liability for breach of contract requires
proof that damages resulted from or were caused by the breach. Border State Bank of
Greenbush v. Bagley Livestock Exch., 690 N.W.2d 326, 336 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004); see also
Faust v. Parrott , 270 N.W.2d 117, 120 (Minn. 1978) ( As a prerequisite to recovery it was
incumbent on plaintiffs to prove the amount of the damages they sustained). Speculative,
remote, or conjectural damages are not recoverable at law. Lassen v. First Bank of Eden
Prairie, 514 N.W.2d 831, 839 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). Damages must be ascertainable with
reasonable exactness and may not be the product of benevolent speculation. Faust, 270 N.W.2d
at 120. A breach of contract claim fails as a matter of law if the plaintiff cannot establish that
56-CV-24-1426 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
5/26/2026 5:57 PM

[Page 15]
15
4928-7269-8285 v.1
he or she has been damaged by the alleged breach. Jensen v. Duluth Area YMCA, 688 N.W.2d
574, 578-79 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
Rule 56.03 specifies that a party asserting that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact must support the assertion by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record,
including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits, stipulations,
admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Minn.R.Civ.P. 56.03. A non-moving
party “cannot rely on assertions in his pleadings to create fact issues” at summary judgment.
Ahlm v. Rooney, 143 N.W.2d 65, 68 (Minn. 1966); see also Credo Salon & Spa, Inc. v. Liberty
Vill. I, LLC , No. A21- 1037, 2022 WL 1297853, at *2, *6 (Minn. Ct. App. May 2, 2022)
(specifically acknowledging that “general statement[s]” in a “complaint” are insufficient to
establish damages on summary judgment).
In this case, Plaintiff alleged in his pleadings that he incurred expenses during his
relocation, including moving supplies, U -Haul rental, and fuel totaling $3,500. See Pl.’s Am.
Compl. at p. 16 (Index # 36). The HRA asked Plaintiff to state and describe all damages that
he alleges he sustained as a result of the alleged breach of the Lease. See  Ex. 1 to Buck Decl.
at p. 24 (Interrog. No. 15). In response, Plaintiff objected and then broadly stated that he
sustained $3,500 in relocation expenses. See id.  The HRA also requested Plaintiff to produce
each and every document which he believed supported his claim for economic damages. See
id. at p. 39 (Req. for Prod. No. 13). In response, Plaintiff again objected and restated the
allegations in his Amended Complaint that he sustained $3,500 in relocation expenses. See id.
Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence that he sustained damages caused by the alleged
breach of the Lease. Plaintiff has also failed to itemize any of his alleged relocation expenses.
56-CV-24-1426 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
5/26/2026 5:57 PM

[Page 16]
16
4928-7269-8285 v.1
The HRA is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Plaintiff has wholly failed to
demonstrate any damages that he sustained as a result of the alleged breach of the Lease.
IV. CONCLUSION
In sum, Plaintiff’s contract claim fails as a matter of law because Plaintiff materially
breached the Lease through his repeated misconduct that disrupted the li vability of other
tenants at the Premises and the HRA’s ability to manage the Premises. As a result, he is
precluded from bringing his own contract claim, and the HRA acted within its rights to
nonrenew the Lease.  Even if the Court determines there is a fact issue on whether the Lease
was breached, the HRA is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Plaintiff has failed
to demonstrate any damages that he sustained as a result of the alleged breach. Accordingly,
this Court should grant the HRA’s motion, enter judgment in the HRA’s favor, and dismiss
Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim with prejudice.
Dated this 26th day of May, 2026.
  VOGEL LAW FIRM


/s/ Jack M. Buck
 BY: MacKenzie L. Hertz (#0400107)
Jack M. Buck (#0403247)
  218 NP Avenue
PO Box 1389
Fargo, ND  58107-1389
Telephone:  701.237.6983
Email: mhertz@vogellaw.com
jbuck@vogellaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS PAMELA J.
MINTEN, MIKEL B. OLSON, AND FERGUS
FALLS HRA

56-CV-24-1426 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
5/26/2026 5:57 PM