In Minnesota Litigator’s experience of former U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Keyes, he seems to embody kindness, humility, and professionalism. He has had a long and distinguished career in Minnesota civil litigation and, unsurprisingly, has some important insights as to how our system is succeeding and how it is failing. (In critical ways, it seems to be doing plenty of both.)

ML: Judge Keyes, let’s start with your bio.

Keyes: All right. I’ll give you the deep background. I was born in New York City in 1946, and grew up there, in Manhattan, the Lower East Side of New York City.

My family moved to south Florida in 1957. I went to high school down there and then went to college at Notre Dame. I graduated from Notre Dame in 1968, did a one year stint in graduate school at Georgetown, and then went to Michigan to law school.

ML: What kind of graduate school?

Keyes: Government, foreign service at Georgetown, but then I decided right away that it was law school that I really wanted. So then I went to Ann Arbor for law school and graduated in ’72.

Then I faced the issue of where to go to work. I had summer clerked in Chicago at Sidley Austin, an excellent firm, and I really thought seriously about going back to Chicago. Then I had heard great things about the city of Minneapolis. I had never been to Minneapolis, but it sounded like the kind of place that I thought that I might be looking for. Came out here and interviewed with several of the firms, and then we decided that, “Well, let’s take a shot at this beautiful city in the Midwest….” And it was a great decision. I came here in 1972 and went to work for what was then the Haverstock Gray Plant Firm, now known as Gray Plant Mooty. I worked at Gray Plant, which is just a wonderful, wonderful place, from 1972 to 1986, and then I moved over to Briggs and Morgan.

ML: Why did you move?

Keyes: Well, at that time, there were a lot of changes going on in Gray Plant firm. A large group of lawyers had left, Dick Bowman had left. Initially, I was going to go work with Dick, because I had done a fair amount of work with Dick. You know Dick Bowman, who recently passed away. Such a wonderful lawyer. So there were a large group that left at that time, and I got itchy about doing something else. Then, shortly thereafter, the opportunity at Briggs and Morgan arose. So I decided to move there. But it was a situation where I maintained a long and wonderful relationship with Gray Plant. In those days, though, it was very difficult leaving law firms. Today, everybody moves around so much. But at that time, when you joined a law firm, I always said it like joining a monastic order. You didn’t just move around. It was a difficult decision, but one that was right for me at the time. I always say that I had the opportunity to work for two excellent firms, and great people, during that whole period of time. It was a good decision. And I worked at Briggs until I went on the bench in 2008. So 22 years at Briggs.

ML: What prompted you to make the move to become a United States Magistrate Judge?


Update (December 6, 2017): Read the previous posts, below.

The duration of this litigation is staggering. Congratulations to Plaintiff, Mr. Drewitz, and his bulldog lawyer for the affirmance of their award for $340,918.66 in attorney fees and costs. We will put a tickler on the calendar for 2027 to inquire into whether Plaintiff was able to recover actual money based on the award…

Update (June 25, 2015): To quote this week’s Minnesota Court of Appeals decision in “Drewitz V” (or is this “Drewitz VI”? I can’t keep count.): this has been “incredibly protracted litigation…much of which was due to adverse district court rulings that he three times successfully appealed.” To be clear, Plaintiff Drewitz and his bulldog lawyer brought this case ELEVEN YEARS ago and over that time, the Hennepin County District Court Judge (Marilyn Brown Rosenbaum, since retired), kept ruling against plaintiff’s claims and being reversed on appeal.

The next stop, of course, will be Motorwerk’s (that is, Jack Walser’s) yet another petition to the Minnesota Supreme Court, presumably.

Call me crazy but I get the feeling that the Walsers REALLY don’t want to pay Mr. Drewitz his share as a previous part owner of BMW Motorwerks. Congratulations to Plaintiff and his tenacious bulldog (for now)…

Update (January 31, 2013): (under the headline: Bull Dog Finally Done in 13 Year Dog-Fight?) This week the Minnesota Supreme Court denied a petition for further review in this epic struggle.

Original Post (11/21/2012):  Twin Cities area litigator, Paul W. Chamberlain, owns “” but he makes clear on his website that the qualities of the animal that he wants to evoke are “loyalty, persistence, an even temper and tenacity,” and not aggression and anger.

There can be little doubt that those qualities have been called upon in the epic saga of John Drewitz v. Motorwerks, Inc., a piece of shareholder litigation that has been on-going for 13 years, in which Drewitz’s case has been up and down the appellate courts five times.  Throughout, Drewitz has lost at the trial court, had his case revived on appeal, and then lost again at the trial court.


While we have enjoyed significant success over the years in predicting the outcomes of particular motions, lawsuits, or appeals, Minnesota Litigator has tried to predict big waves in civil litigation but our track record there has been poor. Our “big wave” predictions have not run aground with spectacular thundering crashes. Just barely audible tinkles.

And we did not see this one coming.

The linked 133-page complaint tells the harrowing tale of how Ramsey County (and every other county across the country, really) has had to deal with the tsunami of opiates over the past 15 years (see p. 18). (Similar complaints were also filed for Washington and Mower Counties.)

Ramsey County’s claims against the “legal drug dealers” (basically the entire market for prescription opiates) are: (1) public nuisance, (2) negligence and negligent misrepresentation, (3) negligence per se, (4) unjust enrichment, (5) common law fraud, (6) unlawful trade practices, (7) deceptive trade practices, (8) false statements in advertising, (8) consumer fraud act, and (9) the federal trademark law (the Lanham Act).


Update (December 1, 2017): When a federal agency refuses to share information with a civil litigant who claims a need for the information to defend a lawsuit by another non-government litigant, what is a court to do? Let’s say the agency invokes the “the investigatory files privilege”? Is that the end of the inquiry? Can the private litigant drag a federal agency into court? Into which court? Under which law? Does the agency have to substantiate that confidentiality claim? With what kind of evidence? And how much evidence?

What degree of deference does the court owe to the agency’s confidentiality decision?

Surprisingly, courts across our federal system answer these questions inconsistently and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has yet to weigh in.

In the case described below, U.S. Mag. Judge Hildy Bowbeer (D. Minn.) sided with those courts that gave greater deference to the government agency resisting production of information designated confidential. She therefore denied the defendant Fifth Third Bank’s motion to compel production by the FBI related to its investigation of the internet fraud scheme described below.

The decision seems correct in analysis and outcome. In particular, the defendant bank, Fifth Third, wants federal investigator notes of the duped bank employee’s interview but Fifth Third appears not to have bothered to seek out and depose the employee. The bank suggests that the witness might not remember things as she did in her initial interview and Judge Bowbeer fairly points out that this requires some speculation. Furthermore,

Upsher-Smith alleges, among other things, that Fifth Third Bank violated its contractual obligations by executing the foreign currency wire transfers at the direction of a single employee at the company and thus breached its duty to obtain approval from at least two employees prior to executing such trades.

If, in fact, the bank agreed by contract to have “double approval” of foreign currency transfers, presumably (1) it has a record of this contractual obligation; and (2) it has a record of whether it met this obligation.

Also, though we cannot read the confidential sealed portions of the Court’s order, it does not require much of a stretch of the imagination to see how the government’s investigation of this multi-million dollar scam might reflect information where the “public has an interest in ‘minimizing disclosure of documents that would tend to reveal law enforcement investigative techniques or sources.’


BedUpdate (November 29, 2017): One thing about trials: they seem so momentous, so dramatic, so climactic, but sometimes they’re just a blip, just one chapter of an excruciating saga. Linked here is an order from the U.S. District Court (D. Minn.) (Frank, J.) vacating the judgment that we linked to below (and again link to here) (and, lest you forget, there was a court notice of judgment for the defendant though there was a money judgment against the defendant). So, who won this case anyway?

Update (November 21, 2017): Here is Defendants’ joint fee petition seeking attorneys’ fees (and not costs, apparently) of $8,994,614.79 (about $4.5 million a piece for the two defendants). Here is Plaintiff’s motion for fees of $4.6 million and costs of $950,000. It would seem neither side can argue the othe side’s fees are excessive (since they are roughly the same).

Update (November 7, 2017): The linked document clarifies that defendants in the Select Comfort bed battle were not entirely victorious but, still, they basically won. We note that the judgment is the 599th docket entry in the case. We do not know the legal fees and costs spent by Select Comfort but 10x the recovery or more seems likely.

Update (October 19, 2017): The linked document is a little puzzling but it looks like a total victory for the defendants.

Update (October 17, 2017): The extraordinarily hard-fought and long-standing civil litigation (trademark litigation, to be specific) between Minnesota bed behemoth, Select Comfort, and a smaller on-line bed-selling competitor, Personal Touch Beds and Personal Comfort Beds (et al.), finally went to trial before U.S. District Court Judge Donovan W. Frank (D. Minn.) over the past couple of weeks. The jury is deliberating…

Here-linked is the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law filed this past week.


Congratulations to the Minnetonka law firm of Johnson & Johnson for their win against the county of Anoka in connection with their clients’ road-kill bill.

The city of Anoka entered into a contract with Rick Johnson’s Deer & Beaver, Inc. (“D&B”). D&B agreed to collect “all” of the county’s deer and beaver road kill on a negotiated payment schedule. Then, while under contract with D&B, Anoka decided to use prison labor for the same task.

Anoka raised many defenses, each more putrid than the other, and the rankest of all being that “all,” in the expression, “all deer carcasses located on or near Anoka County highways” did not mean “‘all’ as in….’all.'”

The county argued that “the parties intended the word ‘all’ in the contracts to mean something other than ‘all.'”

The Court of Appeals opinion does not elaborate on this audacious argument, which might make the County Attorneys’ office look worse (or better) than it would if we heard the detail.


Corey Smith slipped on ice, fell, and was injured in a Wal-mart parking lot in Freeborn County three winters ago. One year ago, Mr. Smith, through counsel, sued Wal-mart for his injuries. About six months ago, the case settled in a settlement conference but the parties could not agree on the language of the formal settlement agreement for six months.

This past week, the Court had to decide the final details of the settlement agreement, extending the duration of the lawsuit by an additional 50% and delaying the conclusion of the lawsuit by six months.

Who caused this delay? Who benefited from this delay?


ContortionistUpdate (November 24, 2017): The Minnesota Supreme Court granted the linked petition for review by CorVascular. The issue in the case is when a Minnesota limited liability company (an “LLC”) has a duty (imposed by statute) to indemnify an LLC member, whom it sues. The question, roughly, is, “When a company sues a member for wrong-doing that the member denies, under what circumstances does the company have to pay the member’s defense costs?”

This obviously is a critical question given the high cost of civil litigation.

As discussed in the earlier post (under the headline Another Tirade Against Minnesota’s “Unpublished” Appellate Decisions), the issue is not only critical in the CorVascular case but in many others and, therefore, the fact that the intermediate court’s decision was designated “unpublished” seemed inappropriate.

Update August 30, 2017: We recognize the futility of our efforts but another “unpublished” Minnesota Court of Appeals decision issued this week (as they do every week in ever-growing numbers, it seems). And, again, in our view, it highlights a misuse of this “non-precedential” status and is a disservice to Minnesotan legal consumers (Minnesota lawyers and their clients).

CorVascular Diagnostics is a Minnesota limited liability company (LLC) and a plaintiff in a lawsuit against one of the LLC members, Michael Talcott (and others).

The issue on appeal was whether Mr. Talcott was entitled to have the LLC pay his attorneys’ fees under Minn. Stat. § 322B.699.

Hennepin County District Court Judge Susan Robiner decided against Mr. Talcott. The Minnesota Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Francis Connolly, reversed Judge Robiner’s decision.


turkey-520632_1280TIME TO GOBBLE (for meat-eating Americans (not so much for turkeys)).

More than 40 million turkeys are raised by Minnesota family farmers every year.

From LEVENTHAL pllc, Happy Thanksgiving and Happy Holidays to All!

A Disemboweled Meat Grinder

Update (November 22, 2107): The case, described below, involved a worker, Nereus Montemayor, who climbed into an extruder, a giant meat grinder (more or less), which had been jammed. Another worker, not knowing Mr. Montemayor was inside the meat grinder, fired up the machine. Mr. Montemayor was badly injured.

The case has been up to the Minnesota Supreme Court and back down to the trial court once already. On its first visit to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court reversed summary judgment in the machine manufacturer’s favor.

On remand, the trial court judge, Chief Judge Jodi L. Williamson in Dodge County, again ruled in favor of the machine manufacturer on a motion for summary judgment. This time, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s second grant of summary judgment.

Our concern about the defendants’ argument the first time around, referred to in the original subject line of this post (“DO NOT ENTER” and “WHEN YOU ENTER, BE CAREFUL”), was the inconsistent warning on the machine. The Court of Appeals did not find any merit in that critique since Mr. Montemayor apparently did not read the warning(s) so he could not complain about their inconsistency. But, in Round #2, the Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer. Plaintiff’s design expert will testify that a start-up alarm or start-up delay would have been feasible and would have prevented the accident. This testimony gets the plaintiff past defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

We’ll see if the manufacturer seeks Minnesota Supreme Court review again and, if so, whether the Minnesota Supreme Court takes the case. (Our bets: no and no.)

The Court of Appeals’ decision makes a lot of sense. Stop a second and get your head around the number of injuries that have been prevented by vehicle backup alarms. (Interestingly, the federal workplace safety regulator, OSHA, does not require vehicles to include backup alarms but they do have regulations prohibiting removal of them if installed by the manufacturer.) How expensive could a start-up warning be on a human-sized meat-grinder? The cost of such devices seems minimal when weighed against the cost of injuries they prevent.