Update (June 4, 2011): Minnesota Litigator received an email from Mr. Illig (or this was how the email was signed) suggesting that the incident did not involve any “ex-girlfriend,” that one could confirm by reference to “incident case number 73-t5-03-6755” (presumably a St. Cloud criminal case file), and that the St. Cloud Times also got the story wrong.
The email received by Minnesota Litigator suggested one should “not talk sh*t” about people one does not know. While Minnesota Litigator would state its editorial policy somewhat differently, Minnesota Litigator agrees in general with such a policy and apologizes for any factual error in the post below, which was inadvertent.
Original Post (June 1, 2011): Korey Sufka was at The Red Carpet Nightclub in St. Cloud watching his friends on the dance-floor until off-duty Red Carpet bartender Michael Illig, believing that Sufka was “having relations” with Illig’s ex-girlfried, appears to have grabbed Sufka and forcibly ejected him, possibly with the help of Red Carpet bouncers.
Between Sufka’s bar-stool and his ejection stood a door, which Illig appears to have opened with Sufka’s face. The door had not been designed to be easily opened by face and Sufka sustained injuries.
Sufka’s complaint against The Red Carpet based on Illig’s misconduct was thrown out of court based on the fact that Illig was acting as himself at the time, not as a Red Carpet employee in the course of his employment. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed on that issue. As for the Red Carpet bouncers, however, that’s a different story and, this week, the Minnesota Court of Appeals remanded Sufka’s case on that basis.
The case is noteworthy from litigator’s perspective in light of defendants’ argument that certain important pieces of evidence were “not in the record on appeal.”
Judge Francis J. Connolly, writing for the panel, referencing case law and rules that seem at least a little unclear as to what exactly “the record” is supposed to be on appeal, ruled in appellant’s favor on this point — holding that his failure to include certain evidence in his appendix on appeal did not result in their being an insufficient record on which to decide the appeal.