UPDATE: Attorney General's Office Enters Case
Date: August 14, 2025
On August 14, 2025, Assistant Attorney General Matt Mason filed a Notice of Appearance in Strickland v. Ramsey County, et al., representing Referees Clysdale, Larmouth, Rossow, Elsmore, and Court Administrator Nicole Rueger.
Summary in Context
Mason's appearance arrived during a period of rapid filings and unexpected procedural shifts. Less than 24 hours earlier, Defendant Kyle T. Manderfeld had submitted a letter requesting a continuance on Plaintiff's behalf without consent, followed by a memorandum invoking a collateral-estoppel theory that had never been raised previously. Around the same time, the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board issued a determination letter that:
- Incorrectly stated that the federal case did not include Manderfeld as a defendant;
- Mischaracterized Plaintiff's core allegations; and
- Attempted to minimize concerns about ex parte communication without addressing the record.
The proximity of these events created an unavoidable appearance of coordination among multiple state entities. But it is important to distinguish timing from conduct.
Mason's Professionalism
Although the sequence of filings surrounding Mason's entry raised obvious questions about systemic posture, Mason himself has demonstrated exemplary professionalism throughout his involvement. He has adhered strictly to procedural rules, maintained an appropriate tone, and conducted himself in a manner fully consistent with the obligations of his office.
His communications have been respectful, clear, and grounded in the record-even when representing defendants whose behavior is central to Plaintiff's allegations. Any appearance of alignment with the county defendants arises from his institutional role, not his personal conduct.
Why It Matters
The Attorney General's Office represents the referees and the administrator whose actions lie at the heart of Plaintiff's due-process and ADA-retaliation claims. Mason's entry therefore clarifies the State's legal posture: Minnesota has chosen to defend these officials and their actions in federal court.
That decision has consequences. It concentrates authority within a single state office that has structural incentives to defend the judiciary, even when systemic irregularities are raised. But while the institutional choice is significant, it should not be conflated with any improper action by Mason.
Analysis Across the Three Cases
Mason's involvement intersects with three parallel matters: the federal civil rights case, the HRO appeal, and the civil defamation/harassment matter. His role consolidates representation of the referees and the administrator in one place, meaning discovery will be especially important in determining:
- how assignment decisions were made,
- how unsigned and altered orders were processed,
- what internal communications occurred after federal service.
None of these questions relate to Mason's conduct personally; instead, they concern the state actors he is obliged to defend.
What This Means Going Forward
Plaintiff can expect a more formal and structured defense strategy, including heavier reliance on immunity doctrines and narrower interpretations of procedural irregularities. At the same time, Mason's professionalism signals that the case may now proceed with at least one attorney who treats Plaintiff fairly and follows the procedural rules without exception.
Ultimately, Mason's entry underscores the stakes: the State of Minnesota is now fully committed to defending the actions of the referees and court administrator. As federal and appellate judges review the record, they will evaluate not just individual errors but the institutional responses to them-a distinction that remains central to Plaintiff's claims.