STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

FAMILY COURT DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Court File No.: 19HA-CV-18-905
Judicial Officer: Jerome B. Abrams

Plaintiff,
v.

David V. Rucki; Samantha Rucki, Gianna

Rucki; Sandra Sue Grazzini Rucki; Deidre
Elise Evavold; Destiny Equine Intervention
d/b/a White Horse Range, a Minnesota
Nonprofit Corporation; Gina Schmit
Dahlen; Douglas Dahlen; Destiny Church;
Steve Quernemoen and Trish Quernemoen,

Defendants,
______________________________________________________________________________

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Case Type: Personal Injury

David V. Rucki, Samantha Rucki, and Court File No.: 19HA-CV-18-4286

Gianna Rucki, Judicial Officer: Jerome B. Abrams

Plaintiffs,

v.

Sandra Sue Grazzini Rucki; Deirdre Elise

Evavold; Destiny Equine Intervention d/b/a
White Horse Ranch, a Minnesota Nonprofit
Corporation; Gina Schmit Dahlen; Douglas
Dahlen, Destiny Church, Steve Quernomoen
and Trish Quernomoen,

Defendants.

1
______________________________________________________________________

DEFENDANTS DAVID V. RUCKI, SAMANTHA RUCKI AND GIANNA

RUCKI’S MEMORANDUM ON ISSUES AND PROPOSED SCHEDULING
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs David V. Rucki, Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki (collectively

“The Ruckis”)submit this memorandum in response to the Court’s November 5,

2019 Order requesting either a joint resolution of the ancillary declaratory

judgment action or a memorandum outlining the remaining issues and a proposed

new scheduling order. This matter involves two actions: an underlying personal

injury action by the Ruckis and a declaratory judgment action by State Farm Fire &

Casualty Company (hereinafter “State Farm”). One of the remaining Defendants in

the underlying action and the declaratory judgment action, Deirdre Evavold, filed

and served Answers to the Complaints in both actions, responded to some discovery,

but failed to appear for a deposition despite a court order to do so. She has also

notified the court and all parties that she does not intend to participate in this

litigation any further. Based on that, the court has asked the remaining parties to

submit memoranda on the remaining issues and to submit proposed scheduling

orders.

UNDERLYING ACTION

The underlying action includes claims of deprivation of parental rights, false

imprisonment and defamation, among others. The Ruckis have settled with several

2
of the Defendants but have not be able to effect service of the Summons and

Complaint on Defendant Sandra Grazzini-Rucki. The only remaining Defendant

relevant to the suit is Deirde Evavold. Plaintiffs request the court issue a new

scheduling order setting the matter for trial so a default judgment may be entered

against Ms. Evavold on the claims in the underlying action. Since Defendant

Evavold has failed to comply with court ordered discovery and represented to the

court and to the parties that she will not participate in the litigation, the Plaintiffs

should be given the opportunity to present their case against Evavold on both

liability and damages. Plaintiffs should also be given the opportunity to prove what

extent of their damages stem from Evavold’s acts of false imprisonment of Plaintiffs

Samantha and Gianna Rucki. If Plaintiffs succeed on that theory of liability, then,

as State Farm admits in their memorandum, there is coverage under Evavold’s

umbrella policy.

Plaintiffs disagree that State Farm should be entitled to file another

dispositive motion in the declaratory judgment matter until after the default

hearing is held in the underlying action. Since State Farm concedes that there

would be coverage if the Ruckis establish that Evavold acted “within the realm of a

covered false imprisonment event,” and that a fact issue exists whether that is the

case, the court needs to act as the factfinder after a trial or default hearing on that

issue before State Farm is entitled to default judgment against Defendant Evavold

on the issue of coverage as a whole.

3
 REMAINING ISSUES:

I. Underlying Action
A. Liability (including for claims of false imprisonment)
B. Damages
II. Declaratory Judgment Action.
A. Whether any damages to the Ruckis were caused by
Evavold’s actions of false imprisonment.

Plaintiffs Ruckis are entitled to a trial or default evidentiary hearing on the

issue of damages as a result of Evavold’s false imprisonment of Samantha and

Gianna Rucki. This entitlement exists regardless of whether Evavold participates

in the trial or not. Plaintiffs Ruckis can present evidence on this issue, and the

court can decide it as the fact finder. State Farm’s declaratory judgment action

hinges on the court’s findings on this issue. Necessarily then, the trial on the

underlying action needs to occur before State Farm can bring another dispositive

motion or try the case to a jury.

PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER

Plaintiffs Ruckis propose a default hearing/trial date in the underlying action

in mid-June, 2020, to accommodate the college schedules for Samantha Rucki and

Gianna Rucki. Once the court rules in that case, the declaratory judgment action

can proceed. The Ruckis also request the court order the remaining parties (Ruckis

and State Farm) participate in mediation to attempt to resolve both cases before the

default hearing in June.

4
Dated: December 17, 2019
Respectfully submitted,

ELLIOTT LAW OFFICES PA

By: /s/ Lisa M. Elliott___________

Lisa M. Elliott, #201923
Dawn L. Gagne, #158550
2409 West 66th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55423
(612) 861-3000

Attorneys for Defendants

David V. Rucki,
Samantha Rucki and
Gianna Rucki