Electronically Served
6/18/2018 2:54 PM
Dakota County, MN

19HA-CV-18-2643

STATE OF MINNESOTA

DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF DAKOTA

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Case type: Civil
19HA-CV-18-2643
Court File No.

Michelle L. MacDonald, MacDonald
Law Firm, LLC,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
vs.
)
)
Michael Brodkorb, individually and
)
doing business as
)
www.MissinginMinnesota.com,
Missing in Minnesota, LLC, and John )
)
and Mary Does,
)
Defendants. )

DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF
LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
RULE 11 SANCTIONS AGAINST
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

INTRODUCTION
The Plaintiffs have brought a completely frivolous and vexatious lawsuit against
the Defendants. As a threshold matter, the attorney signing the pleadings, who is also a
co-Plaintiff with her law firm, MacDonald Law Firm, LLC, appears to be in violation of
the Order of the Minnesota Supreme Court dated March 27, 2018 setting forth the
conditions under which Ms. MacDonald is allowed to practice law.1 This Order states, in
relevant part: “Respondent shall not engage in the solo practice of law, but shall work in
a setting where she is in daily contact with, and under the direct supervision of, another
Minnesota licensed attorney.” In what is ostensibly an attempt to circumvent the

1

In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Michelle Lowney MacDonald, A16-1282, Order dated March 27,
2018. This order is subject to judicial notice so its inclusion with these motion papers is unnecessary.

 19HA-CV-18-2643

Minnesota Supreme Court’s Order that she not engage in the solo practice of law, Ms.
MacDonald lists on her website Attorney Scott Klemp.2 A review of the Minnesota
MARS system on the date of the memorandum reveals that Attorney Klemp practices in
Mendota Heights with a firm called Klemp & Stanton, PLLP.3 If Mr. Klemp is practicing
at another office, he appears to be neither an associate or law partner of Ms. MacDonald.
Furthermore, Order of the Supreme Court relating to Ms. MacDonald’s practice of law
goes on to state that: “The attorney who directly supervises respondent’s work must cosign all pleadings, briefs, and other court documents that respondent files.” In the instant
matter, there is a separate signature page attached to the Complaint signed by an attorney
named Larry A. Frost, who, according to his signature block, practices law at an office in
Bloomington, Minnesota. Mr. Frost did not sign the Summons in the instant matter, as
required by the Order of the Minnesota Supreme Court. It appears that the Order of the
Minnesota Supreme Court was written in such a way so as to prevent cases like the
instant case from being initiated by Ms. MacDonald. The safeguards set forth in the
Order of the Minnesota Supreme Court relating to her practice of law have been ignored
by Ms. MacDonald and her cohorts.
MINNESOTA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 11
Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.02 states in relevant part as follows:
“11.02 Representations to Court
By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later
advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other document, an attorney or self-

2
3

http://www.macdonaldlawfirm.com/about, also see Affidavit of Nathan M. Hansen, Exhibit 1.
Affidavit of Nathan M. Hansen, Exhibit 2.

 19HA-CV-18-2643

represented litigant is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information,
and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(a) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause
unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(b) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by
existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of
existing law or the establishment of new law;
(c) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if
specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable
opportunity for further investigation or discovery…”
The Defendants contend that the Complaint in this case violates all of the above
provisions of Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.02.
THE COMPLAINT, THE LAW, AND THE FACTS
Plaintiffs have wholly failed to articulate any claim in their complaint that would
cause this court to rule in their favor. As such, the complaint should be dismissed with
prejudice and without further litigation.
In the voluminous, rambling, 28-page complaint, Plaintiffs allege essentially three
issues in support of a claim for defamation4. 1) That Plaintiff Michelle MacDonald was
identified as a “Person of Interest” in a criminal case but this was false; 2) That
photographs published on Defendants’ website were somehow defamatory; and 3) That
she was not convicted of an driving offense involving alcohol. All of these issues are
easily investigated in the public record and none of which rise to the level of a colorable
claim for defamation. Each issue is discussed hereinafter.

4

Plaintiffs appear to attempt to make some sort of civil claim for violation of Society of Professional Journalists
Code of Ethics, but this claim is so ridiculous and without merit that it does not require further discussion. There is
nothing cited by the Plaintiffs that supports any assertion that any such violation, even if it happened, would give
rise to a civil claim in tort.

 19HA-CV-18-2643

1.

“Person of Interest.”

By her own admission, Plaintiff MacDonald was indeed labeled as a person of
interest in the disappearance of the Rucki sisters. Plaintiff Michelle MacDonald
admitted, in a book she authored, “Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and the World's Last Custody
Trial,” which was she co-published in 2016, that she was a “Person of Interest” in the
underlying case. The relevant pages of this book are attached as Exhibit 3 to the
Affidavit of Nathan M Hansen. Clearly she states on page 61 of her book that Plaintiff
asked Lieutenant Jason Polisnski of the Lakeville Police Department if she was a “person
of interest” in the underlying incident. She goes on to say that Detective Dronen, also of
the Lakeville Police Department did describe Plaintiff MacDonald as a “person of
interest” and that she had been a suspect at one point. Id. Accordingly, it cannot be said
that any claim of defamation exists when the Plaintiff herself wrote about the accusation
in a published book. This claim is entirely without merit.
2.

Booking photographs.

The Plaintiffs contend that photographs of Plaintiff Michelle MacDonald were
published by Defendants. These photographs were publicly available and/or are public
records. In no way could publishing publicly available photographs give rise to a claim
for defamation. The claim is nonsensical and entirely without merit.
3.

Arrest and conviction for alcohol related traffic crimes.

Plaintiff Michelle MacDonald also takes issue with the publication of information
regarding her arrest for an alcohol-related driving incident. The fact is she was arrested
and sentenced for this arrest, (Dakota County District Court, File No. 19HA-CR-13-

 19HA-CV-18-2643

1371). While perhaps embarrassing, this information is publicly available and true. That
Defendants shared this factual information does not give rise to a claim for defamation.
In order to legitimately bring a claim for defamation in Minnesota, one must show
(1) a false and defamatory statement, (2) an unprivileged publication to a third party (3) a
tendency to harm the plaintiffs’ reputation in the community and (4) fault, at least
negligence. Chafoulias v. Peterson, 642 N.W.2d 764 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). When a
public figure is involved, “actual malice” must be proven. Id. Citing New York Times v.
Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 84 S.Ct. 710, 726, 11 L.Ed2d 686 (1964). Plaintiff
Michelle MacDonald has been and is once again a candidate for Justice of the Minnesota
Supreme Court. This fact is easily susceptible to judicial notice, so any further
documentation is not necessary. It is axiomatic that running for statewide public office
makes one a public figure. In paragraph 15 of their Complaint, the Plaintiffs use the
word “malice,” but do not otherwise plead any facts substantiating an assertion of actual
malice, as required by the heightened pleading standard triggered by a public figure
asserting defamation.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, the Defendants respectfully request that the relief
sought in the instant motion be granted by the Court.

 19HA-CV-18-2643

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: June 18, 2018

/e/ Nathan M. Hansen
Nathan M. Hansen
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
Michael Brodkorb and
Missing in Minnesota, LLC
2440 North Charles Street, Ste 242
North St. Paul, MN 55109
651-704-9600
651-704-9604 (fax)
Attorney Reg. No. 0328017
nathan@hansenlawoffice.com