From our private database of 14,200+ case briefs...
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota
Minnesota Court of Appeals
731 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. App. 2007)
Sinuon Leiendecker (plaintiff) was executive director of Asian Women United of Minnesota (AWUM) (defendant), a nonprofit corporation, from 1999 until February 2004. After Leiendecker asserted that AWUM had violated its bylaws, Sushila Shah (Shah), Quoc-Bao Do (Bao Do), and the remaining five members of AWUM’s board of directors (old board) passed a resolution to fire Leiendecker in November 2003. The board continued to allow Leiendecker to act as director. During that time, Leiendecker sought to install a new board of directors (new board). The old board reported Leiendecker to various Minnesota officials for “serious mismanagement of agency funds and questionable conduct.” The new board then sued the old board, seeking declarations that the new board was AWUM’s rightful board of directors and Leiendecker its executive director. Along with its answer, the old board filed a third-party complaint seeking a declaration that the new board was illegitimate and naming Leiendecker as a defendant. The court concluded that the old board was the rightful board, ousted Shah and Bao Do, and nullified the resolution to fire Leiendecker. The old board promptly terminated Leiendecker. The court granted Leiendecker’s motion to dismiss the claims against her. Leiendecker then sued AWUM for defamation, tortious interference with a contract, breach of contract, wrongful termination under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, and violations of the Nonprofit Corporation Act. AWUM moved to dismiss on the ground that Leiendecker’s claims were compulsory counterclaims under Rule 13.01 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure (MRCP) and had been waived by Leiendecker’s failure to assert them in the prior lawsuit. Leiendecker moved for summary judgment as to her defamation claim. The court held a hearing and then dismissed the claims. Leiendecker appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Dietzen, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 241,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,200 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.