Abdi v. Department of Employment & Economic Development

Appellant challenges a district court order affirming the decision of respondent commissioner, which disqualified appellant from certain employment positions for seven years based on a determination that she seriously maltreated a vulnerable adult. Appellant argues that the commissioner's maltreatment determination improperly relied on hearsay evidence in violation of her procedural-due-process rights and is not supported by substantial evidence. Appellant also argues that the disqualification should have been set aside. We affirm.

Appellant challenges the district court's grant of a harassment restraining order (HRO), arguing that his conduct was not objectively unreasonable and did not have a substantial adverse effect on respondent that was objectively reasonable. We affirm.

In this dispute related to a harassment restraining order (HRO), pro se appellant argues that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. Because the district court did not err in determining that it had personal jurisdiction over appellant, we affirm.

In this appeal from an order denying a motion to reopen a harassment-restraining-order (HRO) proceeding pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion. Because the district court acted within its discretion by denying his motion to reopen, we affirm.