Northern States Power Company v. Minnesota Metropolitan Council

Summary

The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed a mandamus petition seeking inverse-condemnation proceedings based on alleged impairment of access to an electrical substation during construction and operation of a light rail line. The court held that the district court improperly considered affidavits without converting the Rule 12.02 motion to a summary-judgment motion, but affirmed dismissal because the physical takings claim was premature and speculative and the failure to agree prospectively on access did not constitute a regulatory taking.

Holdings

1. When a court considers affidavits or other matters outside the pleading that is the subject of a Rule 12.02 motion to dismiss, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. Documents attached to or referenced in a motion are not thereby incorporated into the pleading being challenged.
2. Xcel's physical-taking claim was premature and speculative because the record contained no genuine issue of material fact showing that the light rail tracks, trains, catenary lines, or support poles would physically prevent Xcel from placing cranes on Fifth Street to repair or replace a transformer. Xcel therefore could not obtain mandamus relief on that claim.
3. The failure to reach a prospective access agreement does not constitute a denial of access or a regulatory taking, particularly where negotiations remain ongoing, no transformer has failed, no access request has been made, and no access has been denied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court improperly considered affidavits outside the pleadings without converting the Rule 12.02 motions to dismiss into a Rule 56 summary-judgment motion.
2. Whether the record established a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the light rail system physically prevented Xcel from placing cranes on Fifth Street to repair or replace a transformer.
3. Whether the alleged failure of MnDOT and the Metropolitan Council to provide a prospective guarantee of access constituted a regulatory taking and supported mandamus relief.

Disposition

reversed