State of Minnesota County of Ramsey District Court

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Case Type:______Minnesota Operators of Music and Court File No.: ______Amusements, C&N Sales Company, Inc., Judge: ______A.H. Hermel Candy & Tobacco Co., South Street Saloon, Inc., Double D Partners, LLC d/b/a The Lakes Bar and Grill, and LoKo Bowling, Inc. d/b/a Bogart’s Entertainment Center, SUMMONS Plaintiffs,

Tim Walz, in his official capacity as Governor of Minnesota, Jan Malcolm, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Health, Roslyn Robertson in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, and Steve Grove, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development,

Defendants.

THIS SUMMONS IS DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS:

1. YOU ARE BEING SUED. The Plaintiff has started a lawsuit against you. The Plaintiff's Complaint against you is attached to this summons. Do not throw these papers away. They are official papers that affect your rights. You must respond to this lawsuit even though it may not yet be filed with the Court and there may be no court file number on this summons.

2. YOU MUST REPLY WITHIN 21 DAYS TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS. You must give or mail to the person who signed this summons a written response called an Answer within 21days of the date on which you received this Summons. You must send a copy of your Answer to the person who signed this summons located at:

Monroe Moxness Berg PA 7760 France Avenue South Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55435-5844

3. YOU MUST RESPOND TO EACH CLAIM. The Answer is your written response to the Plaintiff's Complaint. In your Answer you must state whether you agree or disagree with each paragraph of the Complaint. If you believe the Plaintiff should not be given everything asked for in the Complaint, you must say so in your Answer.

4. YOU WILL LOSE YOUR CASE IF YOU DO NOT SEND A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT TO THE PERSON WHO SIGNED THIS SUMMONS. If you do not Answer within 21 days, you will lose this case. You will not get to tell your side of the story, and the Court may decide against you and award the Plaintiff everything asked for in the complaint. If you do not want to contest the claims stated in the complaint, you do not need to respond. A default judgment can then be entered against you for the relief requested in the complaint.

5. LEGAL ASSISTANCE. You may wish to get legal help from a lawyer. If you do not have a lawyer, the Court Administrator may have information about places where you can get legal assistance. Even if you cannot get legal help, you must still provide a written Answer to protect your rights or you may lose the case.

6. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION. The parties may agree to or be ordered to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process under Rule 114 of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice. You must still send your written response to the Complaint even if you expect to use alternative means of resolving this dispute.

Respectfully submitted,

MONROE MOXNESS BERG PA

Dated: January 4, 2021 By: . Matthew S. Duffy (#391072) 7760 France Avenue South, Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55435 Phone: (952) 885-5999 Facsimile: (952) 885-5969 Email: [email protected]

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Tim Walz, in his official capacity as Governor of Minnesota, Jan Malcolm, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Health, Roslyn Robertson, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, and Steve Grove, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs, for their Complaint against Defendants, state and allege as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Minnesota Operators of Music & Amusements (“MOMA”) is a

Minnesota nonprofit corporation, with a registered office address of 8720 11th Avenue,

Bloomington, Minnesota 55420.

2. Plaintiff C&N Sales Company, Inc. (“C&N Sales”) is a Minnesota corporation with a principal place of business located at 1840 Commerce Drive North, Mankato, Minnesota

56003.

3. Plaintiff A.H. Hermel Candy & Tobacco Co. (“A.H. Hermel”) is a Minnesota corporation with a principal place of business located at 23099 North Riverfront Drive, Mankato,

Minnesota 56001.

4. Plaintiff South Street Saloon, Inc. (“South Street Saloon”) is a Minnesota corporation with a principal place of business located at 515 South Front Street, Mankato, MN

56001.

5. Plaintiff Double D Partners, LLC d/b/a The Lakes Bar and Grill (“The Lakes Bar

& Grill”) is a Minnesota limited liability company with a principal place of business located at

151 West Humphrey Street, Lake Crystal, MN 56055.

6. Plaintiff LoKo Bowling, Inc. d/b/a Bogart’s Entertainment Center (“Bogart’s”) is a Minnesota corporation with a principal place of business located at 14917 Garrett Avenue,

Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124.

7. Defendant Tim Walz has, at all relevant times hereto, been the elected Governor of the State of Minnesota.

8. Defendant Jan Malcolm has, at all relevant times hereto, been the appointed

Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Health (“MDH”).

9. Defendant Roslyn Robertson is the current appointed Commissioner of the

Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (“MDOLI”), having succeeded Nancy Leppink in the role on or about August 20, 2020.

10. Defendant Steve Grove has, at all relevant times hereto, been the appointed

Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development

(“MDEED”).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 484.01, subd. 1(1) and Minn. Const. Art. VI, § 3 because it involves the enforceability of Executive

Orders and Industry Guidance issued by the State of Minnesota pursuant to Minnesota law.

12. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 542.18, venue is proper in this Court because the State of Minnesota, or an officer, department, or agency thereof, has been named a party in a civil action. Venue is further proper in this Court pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 542.03(1), 542.09 because the named defendants reside in Ramsey County and because a substantial part of the causes of action arose in Ramsey County.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

13. Plaintiff MOMA is an association of vendors and service providers to bars and restaurants located in Minnesota. Among the amenities that MOMA’s members offer to their customers and patrons are billiards, darts, and other entertainment devices, such as arcade-style and table-style video games.

14. Plaintiffs South Street Saloon and The Lakes Bar & Grill are both restaurants located in Minnesota.

15. Plaintiff C&N Sales is an amusement gaming and vending services provider specializing in providing billiards, darts, ATMS, and other coin-operated machines to restaurants and bars within Minnesota and the greater Midwest.

16. Plaintiff A.H. Hermel is a distributor of water systems, vending, and cash machines to restaurants in Minnesota and Iowa.

17. Plaintiff Bogart’s Entertainment Center is an event venue and restaurant located in Minnesota offering live music, bowling, sand-volleyball, and various other amenities.

18. The global novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”) outbreak has posed a health and economic threat to the State of Minnesota, the United States, and all countries around the world.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization officially characterized the COVID-19 outbreak as a pandemic. On March 13, 2020, President Trump declared a national emergency and Governor Walz declared a peacetime emergency, both due to the pandemic. (See Emergency

Executive Order No. 20-21, (the “Executive Order”)).

19. Minnesota Statute § 12.21, subd. 3(7) authorizes the Governor of Minnesota to cooperate with federal and state agencies “in matters pertaining to the emergency management of the state and nation,” including directing and controlling “the conduct of persons in the state, including entrance or exit from any stricken or threatened public place, occupancy of facilities, . .

. and public meetings or gatherings.”

20. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 12.21, on March 16, 2020, Governor Walz issued

Executive Order 20-04, which prohibited restaurants and bars from offering food or beverages for on-premises consumption beginning March 17, 2020. Subsequently, Governor Walz issued

Executive Order 20-63, which permitted restaurants to offer outdoor service beginning on June

1, 2020.

21. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 12.21, on June 5, 2020, Governor Walz issued

Executive Order 20-74 effective June 9, 2020 (the “June 5 Order”), which, among other things, required that Places of Public Accommodation (as defined in the Executive Order), including

restaurants and bars, implement COVID-19 Preparedness Plans that provide for the business’s implementation of, among other things, the applicable MDH and CDC Guidelines. The June 5

Order provided that restaurants and bars may offer food and beverages for on-premises consumption both indoor and outdoor services but must do so at 50% capacity, with a maximum of 250 patrons.

22. Comparatively, the June 5 Order provides that retail establishments may be open and operate at full capacity.

23. In accordance with the June 5 Order, Defendants released industry guidance for restaurants and bars (as amended and updated, the “Guidance). A true and correct copy of the

Guidance is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

24. The Guidance requires that all bar and restaurant patrons remain seated at all times. (See Exhibit A, page 1). The Guidance further provides that all bar sports, games, and entertainment devices that require patrons to leave their tables, including “darts, billiards, beanbags, and arcade games” are prohibited indefinitely, though “lawful games” are permitted.

(Exhibit A, page 12). “Lawful games” is not defined in the Guidance.

25. The restrictions outlined in the Guidance fail to take into account that, with previous guidance, many of the entertainment devices are spaced in accordance with proper social distancing guidelines. For example, billiard tables and dartboards have approximately 250 square feet and 150 square feet, respectively, devoted space to accommodate play. And because only one player may play each device at a time, that individual has 250 square feet (for billiard) or 150 square feet (for darts) of space devoted exclusively to themselves while they play. That spacing is more than adequate distancing under even the most conservative guidelines, giving players five to eight times the required six feet of distance from other patrons. Further, because

players are required to wear masks while traveling to/from the entertainment device and remained masked while playing, there is no distinction between a patron playing a game, and a patron using the restroom in a restaurant or shopping in a retail store.

26. In accordance with the Governor’s Executive Orders, South Street Saloon and

The Lakes Bar & Grill reopened their bars and restaurants, and MOMA’s member businesses resumed their offerings of billiards, darts, and other entertainment devices, on or after June 9,

2020.

27. In compliance with the Governor’s Executive Orders, from June 2020 until

November 2020, MOMA and its members have safely operated billiards, darts, and other entertainment devices in accordance with the following protocols and procedures:

 Regular cleaning and sanitation protocols based on CDC standards;

 Installation of stickers on each game and signage in locations;

 Spacing out games to allow for proper social distancing;

 Installation of sanitation stations in game area for game players; and

 Providing league players with league play protocols (collectively, “Plaintiffs’

Proposed Protocol”).

28. There have been no reports of any COVID-19 cases traced back to patrons using billiards, darts, or other entertainment devices in bars or restaurants in Minnesota since such restaurants and bars reopened in June 2020.

29. Further, and despite repeated requests for data and information, MDH and DEED have not provided any reports, data, or information relating to COVID-19 cases being traced back to such entertainment devices.

30. On November 10, 2020, Governor Walz issued Executive Order No. 20-96, which requires all bars and restaurants to close by 10:00 p.m., necessarily removing four of the most profitable hours of Plaintiffs’ businesses. This new restriction was put in place without citing to any data demonstrating that the risk of COVID exposure increases in any meaningful manner between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. (bar closing time in Minnesota).

31. MDH data demonstrates that only 2-3% of overall Minnesota COVID infections are attributable to bars and restaurants. A mandated 10:00 pm closing time discriminates against those bars and restaurants that open later for purposes of providing food and beverage options for patrons who work different shifts or alternative hours that are not strictly Monday through

Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. This curfew unnecessarily and detrimentally impacts bars and restaurants that cater to patrons with non-traditional work schedules. The restriction also severely curtails use of billiards, darts, and other games offered by MOMA members located in such bars and restaurants.

32. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 12.21, on November 18, 2020, Governor Walz issued

Executive Order 20-99 (the “November 18 Order”), requiring that, as of November 21, 2020, all bars, restaurants, and other places of public accommodation cease offering on-premises consumption.

33. The November 18 Order does not impose any restrictions on retail establishments, and current guidance provides that retail stores may operate at 100% capacity to the extent that the size of the facility ensures proper social distancing.

34. On December 16, Governor Walz issued Executive Order 20-103, which extended the closure of restaurants for indoor on-premises consumption, but permitted limited, socially-

distanced outdoor services to resume. Executive Order 20-103 is scheduled to be in effect until at least January 10, 2021 (the “December 16 Order”).

35. The restrictions and distinctions made in the June 5 Order, November 18 Order, and the December 16 Order are based upon data collected by MDH.

36. MDH does not collect data regarding infections traceable to restaurants and retail stores equally.

37. When an individual tests positive for COVID-19 in Minnesota, MDH requests information from the individual about their recent activities. Among the information requested is whether an individual has been to a bar or restaurant. The MDH does not request information regarding whether an individual has been to a retail establishment.

38. MDH does not analyze statistics of infections or outbreaks attributed to retail establishments, nor does it notify patrons of retail establishments of whether they may have come into contact with an individual infected with COVID-19 while at a retail establishment.

39. Retail establishments often serve a higher number of patrons than bars or restaurants, and may have increased customer and employee contact points at which an individual may be exposed to COVID-19.

40. MOMA depends on membership fees from its member businesses to survive. It is estimated that MOMA members were forced to lay off, furlough, or otherwise terminate more than 30% of their employees as a result of the Executive Orders described herein.

41. Plaintiffs’ businesses were entirely shut down in accordance with the Executive

Order 20-04 issued in March. Plaintiffs suffered great harm as a result. For example, Bogart’s lost $681,990 in revenue for the period of January 2020-November 2020 and was forced to

terminate or furlough many of its staff. The Lakes Bar and Grill lost $500,000 in revenue, and suffered extreme financial harm and loss of goodwill as a result of the closure.

42. The Guidance issued pursuant to the June 5 Order would have a similarly devastating effect on MOMA and its member businesses. MOMA estimates that if the November

18 Order and the December 16 Order are left in place, 25% of its member businesses would be forced into bankruptcy and/or cease operations permanently.

43. Plaintiffs anticipate the harm they will suffer as a result of the November 18

Order and the December 16 Order will be far more severe than any prior Executive Order or

Guidance. Plaintiffs and their owners, members, and employees were already stretched to the brink of bankruptcy and closure.

44. The November 18 Order was in place for at least four of the most profitable six weeks of the year for Plaintiffs’ businesses. The continued shutdown pursuant to the December

16 Order will continue to result in catastrophic economic damage to Plaintiffs’ businesses and the communities they employ and serve.

45. If the November 18 Order, the December 16 Order, and the Guidance are not immediately enjoined, MOMA and its member business estimate that 25% of its member businesses would be forced into bankruptcy and/or cease operations permanently. Accordingly,

MOMA itself would lose at least 25% of its members, forcing it into dissolution as well.

46. If the November 18 Order and the December 16 Order are not immediately enjoined, South Street Saloon and The Lakes Bar and Grill anticipate in just the next six weeks they will lose approximately 30% in annual revenue. South Street Saloon and The Lakes Bar &

Grill has already been forced to lay off or furlough all of their staff, many of whom may seek new employment or may not return if and when the December 16 Order is lifted. Both the South

Street Saloon and The Lakes Bar and Grill believe that if these orders are not immediately lifted or enjoined, they will be forced to file for personal and business bankruptcy and/or cease operations.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT ONE Violation of Equal Protection – Closure of Bars, Restaurants, and Other Places of Public Accommodation 47. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

48. Article I, § 2 of the Minnesota Constitution provides that “[n]o member of this state shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.”

49. Equal protection requires that all similarly-situated individuals be treated alike.

50. Minnesota’s equal protection clause extends beyond people to include entities, corporations, and companies.

51. The June 5 Order, November 18 Order, December 16 Order, and the Guidance

(the “Relevant Orders”) disparately affect Plaintiffs, who seek to continue providing on-premises services to their patrons. Though the Relevant Orders severely curtail if not shut down Plaintiffs’ businesses, the Relevant Orders permit retail establishments to operate at full capacity.

52. Further, the Relevant Orders are unsupported by data relating to risk of transmission of COVID-19 in retail establishments as compared to bar and restaurant establishments. Bars and restaurants, including the games located therein, have been operating safely under proper sanitation and social distancing protocols.

53. On information and belief, MDH has not collected or analyzed data on the transmission of COVID-19 in retail environments.

54. Defendants have failed to show a rational basis for prohibiting on-premises services and games at bars and restaurants, while simultaneously permitting full operation of retail establishments. Because MDH does not collect, or has not provided statistics of, data related to exposure to or outbreaks of COVID-19 attributed to retail establishments, there is no rational basis for closing bars and restaurants for on-premises services while permitting retail establishments to operate at full capacity. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have been disparately impacted by the Relevant Orders and will suffer great, irreparable harm as a result.

55. In selectively singling out restaurants and bars for closures, Defendants have failed to afford equal protection to Plaintiffs under the Relevant Orders.

COUNT TWO Violation of Equal Protection – Prohibition of Darts, Billiards, and Entertainment Devices

56. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

57. Article I, § 2 of the Minnesota Constitution provides that “[n]o member of this state shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.”

58. Equal protection requires that all similarly-situated individuals be treated alike.

59. Minnesota’s equal protection clause extends beyond people to include entities, corporations, and companies.

60. The June 5 Order and the Guidance disparately affect MOMA and its member businesses, who seek to continue making their billiards, darts, and other entertainment facilities

available to their patrons. Duplicitously, the June 5 Order and the Guidance simultaneously permit patrons to continue playing “lawful games.”

61. Further, the Guidance demonstrates a significant lack of understanding and expertise by the State about the operation of these various devices, including, without limitation, billiards, darts and other gaming devices. These devices can be operated safely, including with proper social distancing. The State thus failed to rationally narrow its proposed restrictions to address the concern surrounding the pandemic.

62. There is no rational, justifiable difference between participating in billiards, darts, and other entertainment devices, which are prohibited under the Guidance, and playing “lawful games,” which are permitted under the Guidance.

63. Both non-permitted games and “lawful games” require that patrons leave their seats. Patrons are nonetheless required to wear masks when leaving their seats to play any game, whether a “lawful game” or those games prohibited by the Guidance. Further, retail customers are allowed to move freely around retail stores while wearing masks. Patron movement while wearing masks is permitted across industries and sectors in Minnesota, but the Guidance restricts only patrons of MOMA and its member businesses.

64. Moreover, there are many other instances in which patrons at a bar or restaurant must leave their seats: to use the restroom, to go outside to smoke, or while waiting for counter service. All of these instances involve either contact with another individual or contact with communal surfaces, both of which may transmit COVID-19 to patrons.

65. Comparatively, Plaintiffs have offered solutions to make darts, billiards, and other entertainment devices more safe to their patrons through Plaintiffs’ Proposed Protocol (see

Declaration of Andrew Schmitz ¶ 8 (“Schmitz Decl.”)), which includes regular cleaning and

sanitation protocols based on CDC standards, installation of informational stickers on each game and signage in locations, spacing out of games to allow for proper social distancing, installation of sanitation stations in game area for game players, and providing league players with league play protocols.

66. Plaintiffs have been disparately impacted by the June 5 Order and Guidance and will suffer great, irreparable harm as a result.

67. In selectively singling out certain industries and amenities offered by bars and restaurants with no rational basis, Defendants have failed to afford equal protection under the

June 5 Order and the Guidance to Plaintiffs.

COUNT THREE Regulatory Taking

68. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

69. Article I, § 13 of the Minnesota Constitution provides that “[p]rivate property shall not be taken . . . for public use without just compensation therefor . . .”

70. A regulatory taking occurs when there is a substantial physical interference with a property or business. Factors considered include 1) whether the regulation has an economic impact on the plaintiff, 2) whether the regulation interferes with investment-backed expectations, and 3) the character of the governmental action.

71. The Relevant Orders have and will continue to disparately impact Plaintiffs and cause catastrophic financial losses that may result in permanent closure of an untold number of businesses, as well as irreparably harmful ripple effects in Minnesota’s communities as employees are laid off and owners lose their hard-fought investment in their businesses.

72. The Relevant Orders fail to substantially advance legitimate state interests because the burden of the regulation falls on selective business owners, is allocated unfairly, and is not rationally related to the desired end goal of limiting the community spread of COVID-19.

73. Accordingly, there has been an impermissible partial or complete regulatory taking of Plaintiffs’ private property, for public purpose, without providing just compensation to

Plaintiffs.

COUNT FOUR Void for Vagueness

74. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

75. Guidance, legislation, or directives set forth by the State of Minnesota are unconstitutionally vague and therefore void when they fail to define an offense with sufficient certainty that ordinary people may understand what conduct is prohibited, and in a manner that discourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

76. The Guidance states that “lawful games” as provided by Minn. Stat. § 349.12, may be played in bars and restaurants in compliance with the Guidance.

77. “Lawful games” is not defined by Minn. Stat. § 349.12.

78. Because “lawful games” is not defined by Minn. Stat. § 349.12, ordinary people cannot understand, and do not have fair warning of, what conduct is prohibited.

79. Because “lawful games” is not defined by Minn. Stat. § 349.12, the Guidance necessarily encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the Guidance.

80. The Guidance further states that “bar sports,” “games,” and “entertainment devices” are prohibited.

81. Because these terms are ambiguous, vague, and undefined, the Guidance likewise encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the Guidance.

82. Accordingly, the Guidance is void for vagueness, in whole or in part.

COUNT FIVE Declaratory Judgment

83. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

84. An actual, present, genuine, and justiciable controversy has arisen between

Plaintiffs and Defendants concerning, among other things, the constitutionality or enforceability of the Relevant Orders under the Constitution of the State of Minnesota.

85. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 555.01, et seq., Plaintiffs respectfully request a declaration of this Court determining and declaring that the Relevant Orders, as applied to

Plaintiffs, are unconstitutional and unenforceable, because the restrictions are not rationally related to address the concerns raised and because the State of Minnesota failed to explore and adopt appropriate guidelines, including those guidelines developed based on Plaintiffs’ Proposed

Protocol, which balances protecting the economic stability of Minnesota communities with preventing the spread of COVID-19, and is more rationally related to the desired end result of preventing the spread of COVID-19 in Minnesota’s bars and restaurants.

86. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 57, Plaintiffs respectfully request a speedy hearing on its action for declaratory judgment.

REQUEST FOR A JURY TRIAL

87. Plaintiffs request a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

88. Declaring Governor Walz’s Executive Order No. 20-99 and Executive Order 20-

103 prohibiting on-premises consumption at bars, restaurants, and other places of public accommodation unconstitutional and unenforceable;

89. Declaring the State of Minnesota’s Industry Guidance prohibiting the use of darts, billiards, and other entertainment devices at bars and restaurants unconstitutional and unenforceable;

90. Declaring that the State of Minnesota lacks a rational basis to enact and enforce the Relevant Orders because they are not rationally related to the goal of addressing the spread of

COVID-19 and because appropriate guidance can be developed based on Plaintiffs’ Proposed

Protocol, which balances protecting the economic stability of Minnesota’s communities with preventing community spread of COVID-19, and is more rationally related to the desired end result of preventing the spread of COVID-19 in Minnesota’s bars and restaurants;

91. Declaring that the State of Minnesota is prohibited from reinstituting restrictions on Minnesota bars and restaurant, without a rational basis, to address the spread of COVID-19;

92. Awarding Plaintiffs’ fees and expenses, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 15.472; and

93. Awarding Plaintiffs such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

MONROE MOXNESS BERG PA

Dated: ___, 2021 By: . Matthew S. Duffy (#391072) 7760 France Avenue South, Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55435 Phone: (952) 885-5999 Facsimile: (952) 885-5969 Email: [email protected]

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The party to this pleading by its attorneys acknowledges that sanctions may be imposed pursuant to Minn. Stat. §549.211.

. Matthew S. Duffy (#391072) 4835-6871-9568, v. 7