HCBA Logo
Hennepin County
Bar Association
Judge Manrique



 

Meet the Judges            How District Court Works           Judicial Elections 

 

Judge Tanja K. Manrique
formerly Judge Tanja Kozicky

     
Born:   1966
     
Education:   1991 JD Georgetown University
1988 BA Cornell College
     
Recent Career:   1999  Judge, Fourth Judicial District
1995  General Counsel and Deputy Chief of Staff, 
          Governor Arne Carlson
1993  Greene, Espel
1991  Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman
     
Elevated to Bench:   Appointed by Governor Arne Carlson in 1998.
Elected in 2000 and 2006.
     
Previous Assignments:  

12/1998 to 12/2000

Criminal

1/2001 to 12/2002 Juvenile
12/2002 to 6/2003 Criminal
7/2003 to 12/2003 Criminal and Family
12/2003 to Present Family
     
Current Assignments:   Family
     
     

   

More information on this Judge is available from the District Court Website

 
 
 

 


Read Profile from

 

Published in
June 1999

 

 

 

   
 
  The Judges Family Courtroom Procedures and Advice  

1. Do you have any prior personal or professional experience in family court?

No.

 

 

2. What procedures are you following for emergency and/or ex parte motions (by phone or in person, representations as to efforts to notify the other side, go to the signing judge or a blocked judge)?

All such motions should be presented to the blocked judicial officer of record.  If that judicial officer is not available or is no longer assigned to family court, the motion should be presented to a buddy judge (identified by the chambers clerk for the judicial officer of record or court administration).  For new cases which have not yet been blocked, emergency and/or ex parte motions should be presented to the signing judge.  However, parties should note that the signing judge may exercise discretion to grant requests for emergency file openings, but decline to rule upon the substantive motion.  In that circumstance, the moving party will be directed to take the order for emergency filing and the motion papers to court administration, where the case will be blocked to a judicial officer.  The next step for the moving party will be to contact chambers for the assigned judicial officer and present the motion papers.

 

Generally, parties are required to attest to the efforts made to notify the other party in advance of seeking emergency and/or ex parte relief.  There are few exceptions to that requirement. 

 

Due to the gravity of the relief requested by such motions, telephone hearings generally are not preferred. Furthermore, attorneys are encouraged to bring their clients to court when presenting such motions. 

 

Pro se parties likely will find it helpful to access the resources available at the Self-Help Center before attempting to draft or present such motions.

 

3. How are you dividing the workload between judges and referees, in terms of types of cases and issues?

In general, Judges and Referees are assigned identical caseloads.  The current exception is that as of January 1, 2009, the bench as a whole voted to implement a pilot project designed to enhance management of the IV-D caseload.  The Referees agreed to manage all IV-D paternity, support and contempt filings initiated by the County Attorney and not otherwise subject to the Expedited Child Support Magistrate Process.  The Judges agreed to manage all Order for Protection calendars.  These two case types are more typically known as our “mandatory calendars” insofar as the cases are not blocked to a particular judicial officer as a matter of course and we do not have discretion as to scheduling the cases for hearing.  Rather, we are required to adjudicate those calendars during certain weeks each year, as determined by an assignment calendar managed by the court administrator.  During the past year, the bench has been evaluating the pilot on an ongoing basis and the Referees have succeeded at implementing a number of calendaring and service delivery refinements.  The pilot has not altered the assignment of other case types; Judges and Referees have caseloads of commensurate size and case type in all other respects.

 

 

4. Are you using case management conferences, and if so, when in the process are they scheduled, who is present, who is conducting them (judge or referee), and are motions allowed to be considered?

Initial Case Management Conferences are scheduled to occur within 3 weeks of the filing of marital dissolution and custody case types.  The blocked judicial officer conducts the ICMC.  The parties and counsel (if retained) must appear for the ICMC.  The purpose of the ICMC is to delineate the major issues in dispute and formulate a case management plan tailored to resolve those issues in a just, fair, efficient and economical manner.  The court expects the parties to engage in a frank dialogue about the needs of the children and, if possible, to stipulate to a plan which will serve the children’s best interests.  Parties are expected to refrain from serving discovery or motions in advance of the ICMC.  Motions will not be adjudicated at the ICMC.

 

 

5. Are you using and mandating any ADR, specifically including the settlement/arbitration program, judicial case management, early neutral evaluations, mediation, arbitration, or trials by private magistrates?  What are the consequences of failing to do some type of ADR?

Most family court cases resolve by a settlement.  Trials are necessary in only approximately 5% of the cases.  There are many types of Alternative Dispute Resolution referral options available to parties in this court.  However, not every case is appropriate for referral to ADR.  The selection of the most appropriate ADR process is nuanced and must be made on a case by case basis.  To enhance the qualitative experience of pro se litigants who are interested in ADR but reluctant to participate without counsel, the HCBA offers Unbundled Legal Services on cases deemed suitable for referral by the judge of record. 

 

The current menu of ADR options available through family court as of January 1, 2010, includes:

 

 A weekly in-house settlement program for marital estate issues. 

 A monthly Spanish language settlement calendar conducted by a bi-lingual contract settlement referee. 

 The Department of Family Court Services offers mediation or Social Early Neutral Evaluation for custody and parenting time issues. 

 Financial Early Neutral Evaluation is offered by a roster of private sector attorneys and financial professionals. 

 Late Neutral Evaluation is an emerging form of ADR on highly contested cases which are nearly trial ready.

 Arbitration and Rule 53 CSM orders rarely are issued, but sometimes may be helpful in high-asset and high-conflict cases.

 Many cases are referred for mediation with private sector qualified neutrals listed on the rosters maintained by the State Court Administrators Office.

 

Post-decree proceedings will not be scheduled on cases where prior orders require the parties to engage in ADR before returning to court.  Exception requests may be directed to the chambers clerk.

 

 

6. Are you imposing any timelines on Family Court Services for completion of their studies?

The bench communicates with management for the Department of Family Court Services on a regular basis so as to maintain an accurate comprehension of resource availability.  The Department has been subject to drastic resource reductions in recent years.  Parties and counsel should not presume that full custody or parenting time evaluations will be available.  When evaluations are ordered, they generally are completed within 4-5 months. 

 

The court endeavors to triage referrals to the Department and the Department is committed to providing the full scope of its services in a timely manner.  Most service referrals are for ENE or mediation, not full custody or parenting time evaluations.  Limited chemical and mental health evaluation services also are available.  Parties will be expected to access such services through their private insurance whenever possible.

 

 

7. What criterion are you using for the appointment of guardian ad litem, and is it any different for private guardians ad litem or guardians ad litem from the panel?

In general, appointment is mandatory if the court has reason to believe a child has been abused or neglected.  The court has discretion to make permissive appointments in other cases.  In all circumstances, the role of the guardian ad litem is to identify and advocate for the best interests of the child. 

 

It is anticipated that appointment of private sector guardians ad litem will resume in the near future.  The training and qualification standards for public and private sector guardians ad litem should not differ. The ability of the parents to pay for a private sector guardian ad litem will be a key consideration in such appointments.

 

 

8. Are you continuing to schedule trials on a day certain basis, or are you scheduling several trials at the same time for week certain consideration?

Trials are not double booked.   Parties and counsel are expected to adhere to the Trial Scheduling Order timelines for the exchange and filing of witness lists, exhibits, memoranda of law, and proposed orders. 

 

 

9. Are you enforcing the timelines for motion paper filings, and if a violation occurs, what is your typical sanction?

There is not a typical sanction.  Every family case is inherently distinct and sanctions are tailored on a case by case basis.

 

 

10. What are your expectations of pro se litigants?

Pro se litigants are encouraged to access the State court website at www.courts.state.mn.us  and follow the link to the 4th District Family Court page.  They are expected to have their case paperwork reviewed by the Self-Help Center staff at the Family Justice Center prior to serving and filing.  They are expected to be on time for hearings, to treat court personnel with respect, and conduct themselves at all times consistent with the decorum appropriate to the court forum.  Pro se litigants in need of interpreter services should make that need known to court staff at the time hearings are requested or papers are filed.  The Court recognizes that exceptions to the foregoing sometimes will be necessary.

 

 

11. Do you have any policies or practices for controlling parties who continue to bring frivolous motions in the same case time and time again?

Given that such conduct rarely occurs, there has not been a need to establish a general policy or practice.  Determinations must be made on a case by case basis.  Motions for conduct based attorney fees sometimes are filed. In other circumstances, placing a party on notice that sanctions will be considered suffices to manage the situation.  Another option may be to screen motion papers prior to scheduling the matter for hearing.

 

 

12.  Do you have any timelines that you enforce in moving a case from case management conference to temporary relief hearing to trial?

Dissolution and custody cases should be subject to final orders within one year of filing.  Very few cases require temporary relief hearings and trials are necessary in only about 5% of cases.  The average time to disposition for dissolution cases in this judicial district is 6 months.  To ensure those outcomes, the court must monitor compliance with the case management plan stipulated to at the ICMC. 

 

 

13. Will you receive correspondence sent directly to the court from a neutral expert in the case?

No, unless the parties previously addressed that possibility as a part of their stipulated case management plan.  That sort of stipulation is rarely necessary or appropriate.

 

 

14. How would you characterize your willingness to award attorneys’ fees as a sanction in a case?

If one party unreasonably contributed to the time or expense of a proceeding, then an award of conduct based fees may be in order.  Determining whether that standard has been met by the moving party always is a case specific determination.

 

 

15. What is your level of involvement in settlement discussions, and will you tell the parties what you would do in the case if the issue were then before you for decision?

Cases tend to settle incrementally in family court.  Our Early Case Management model reflects that reality and promotes that outcome from filing to final order.  For example, at the beginning of a case, attention should be paid to whether the entire matter could be finished with just one hearing.  If that is not feasible, the focus shifts to assessing whether the parties may be amenable to stipulations as to temporary relief and a referral to some form of ADR.  If the case is not suitable for an ADR referral at that stage, the topic likely will be revisited at the next hearing.  When parties and counsel adhere to the stipulated case management plan devised at the first hearing, the case often is ripe for completion by the time of the pre-trial.  Finally, if a case is postured for trial but the parties evince a strong preference to avoid that process, the possibility of a settlement conference may be suggested.  I am very willing to be involved in settlement discussions to the extent requested by the parties and counsel.  The degree of involvement also varies depending upon the procedural posture of the case, the scope and complexity of issues, and the time available on the docket.  In general, conducting a settlement conference with a facilitative approach tends to suffice.  However, if the parties clearly request an adjudicative or evaluative approach, I will accommodate their preference. 

 

 

16. Will you allow parties to have motions heard at pre-trial conferences?

Pre-trial conferences are scheduled in half hour increments.  As such, there is not time to conduct a pre-trial and also a motion hearing.  Parties or attorneys seeking to add a motion hearing to a pre-trial should contact the clerk of court well in advance of hearing to inquire as to the feasibility of expanding the hearing time to one hour.  If the calendar already is booked, the clerk will set the motion for hearing on a date other than the pre-trial.                                                                            

 
   
  Judicial Profile from The Hennepin Lawyer  (68:6:18)  
   

Tanja K. Manrique (Tanja Kozicky when published)
Originally published in the June 1999 issue.
Author: V. John Ella

Judge Tanja Kozicky (pronounced KAHZ-uh-kee) faced a dilemma. Upon entering her ad hoc chambers at the Southdale Courthouse, she explained that the next matter on her docket was a domestic assault involving a defendant who was mentally ill and therefore, not amenable to traditional forms of probation. A typical challenge for Judge Kozicky’s third week going solo on the bench and she approached the problem with a focused determination.

Tanja Kozicky, who was Gov. Arne Carlson’s last judicial appointment, was named to replace the Hon. Delores C. Orey, who retired in October 1998 from a seat on the Fourth Judicial District Trial Court Bench.

BACKGROUND

Judge Kozicky is a native of Minneapolis and went to high school in Coon Rapids, Minn. She received her bachelor of arts degree magna cum laude from Cornell College in Mount Vernon, Iowa. An early interest in politics and policy (which she is careful to distinguish) was encouraged at Cornell by one of her professors, Craig Allin, who she says was always looking for ways to "make things better." This interest in politics then led her to pursue a law degree at Georgetown University in Washington D.C., after graduating from college. Judge Kozicky remembers that she caught "Potomac fever" the minute her plane landed in Washington and recounts that she reveled in the pace of the city and sense of being "in the midst of it all." Nevertheless, after graduating Phi Beta Kappa from Georgetown, it was apparent that her career track in the nation’s capitol would likely involve years of behind-the-scenes research and she was eager to become more involved, more quickly. She therefore accepted an associate position with the Minneapolis law firm of Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, where she had clerked during both of her summers of law school.

PRIVATE PRACTICE

Judge Kozicky developed a particular interest in natural resource issues while studying with professors from the Environmental Protection Agency as well as working in Popham Haik’s environmental practice group. At that time, she notes, "Law schools were emphasizing specialization as a critical part of every lawyer’s career." Judge Kozicky point to environmental law as an example of the "collaborative practice" of law as corporations now see that it is in their own interest to be environmental stewards.

The head of Popham, Haik’s environmental group was Larry Espel, who quickly became her mentor. It was only natural, therefore, that when Espel left in September, 1993 to co-found the law firm of Greene, Espel, that Judge Kozicky would transfer along with him. She stayed with the Greene, Espel firm until she moved to the Carlson administration in 1995 where she served as deputy chief of staff and legal counsel to the governor.

Judge Kozicky’s experience in private practice caused her to become a proponent of alternative dispute resolution and she was involved in several major disputes which were eventually settled through ADR. Nevertheless, she notes, she also took away the lesson that if a case ends up in trial, the parties have inevitably decided that the issues are very important to them and the case therefore deserves to be treated with the same high priority by the court.

One of her most challenging files as a lawyer in private practice involved representation of a municipality in a real estate workout involving tax increment financing of a large piece of commercial property lying adjacent to Interstate 35. The developer, claiming hardship, did not meet the bond requirements and requested changes to the development agreement. The developer threatened bankruptcy, which would have tied up the property for years instead of getting it back on the city’s tax rolls. The case was eventually resolved on favorable terms, and she feels, was a good example of a case where the parties had to understand exactly what their legal rights were under the agreement, while taking into consideration various political and personality issues.

PUBLIC SERVICE

Judge Kozicky’s interest in politics and policy resurfaced in 1994 when a fellow attorney suggested that she submit her resume to the governor’s office to be considered for one of the 1,500 positions on various state boards and commissions. Her strong environmental law background helped her to land an appointment on the state’s Harmful Substances Compensation Board but, before she could attend the first meeting, the board was abolished by the Legislature. Her career in public service could have ended right there, but approximately one year later she got a telephone call from the governor’s office saying that they had her resume on file and asking if she would be interested in a position as general counsel. Five days later the governor hired her as general counsel.

During the three years that she worked at the capitol, Judge Kozicky had an extremely varied practice. She assisted in managing all 24 state agencies and dealt with legal issues involving the Office of the Attorney General, Corrections, the Department of Natural Resources, Public Safety and the Met Council as just a few examples. As the only lawyer on staff, she notes "[I] had to get up to speed very quickly." The matters involved not only state law, but also federal issues and international relations.

Although she acknowledges that she has relatively little experience in the courtroom aspects of criminal law, she points to her involvement with criminal justice issues for the state and emphasizes that she is only mildly concerned about making the transition from civil to criminal law. She is also aware that many of the judges did not practice criminal law prior to being appointed.

Judge Kozicky participated in every judicial appointment that the governor made during the three years she was his general counsel. Although Governor Carlson was the first governor to almost always appoint judges from the list of three to five finalists presented by the Judicial Selection Commission, despite the fact that there was no obligation for him to do so, Judge Kozicky herself was one of the few judges Governor Carlson appointed from outside the commission process.

ON THE BENCH

Judge Kozicky is looking forward to the day when she will have a mixed civil and criminal calendar but, in the meantime, she says that she enjoys the challenges of criminal law. She will continue to be assigned only criminal matters for the next one and one-half to two years and then, pursuant to Hennepin County custom, will move on to one of the specialized courts. At this point, she is slotted to work in juvenile court for the year 2002-2003, although this may change.

Judge Kozicky completed the standard new judge orientation schedule, which calls for a six-week rotation at the suburban divisions of Hennepin County. This rotation is limited to criminal matters up to and including gross misdemeanors which, of course, means of lot of DWIs, domestic assaults, and traffic court issues. She joined the downtown calendar in mid-April. Judge Kozicky was not surprised by the pace of the criminal justice system in the suburban courts and says that the human drama is in part what made her stay in the public sector instead of returning to private practice.

She says that judges in this context have to be very careful to keep the calendar moving and not to be come social workers but, when appropriate, she will take the time to talk to a defendant and dig a little deeper. While at Southdale Courthouse, she had a young man in court for his seventh underage consumption charge. With a bit of searching, she determined that the first six times the defendant had been charged he had been permitted to simply pay a fine without a court appearance. She sent him to probation where it was discovered he has a medical condition as a result of which any use of marijuana or alcohol might jeopardize his life. While certainly not a landmark case, she cites it as an example where taking a little extra time can make an important difference.

JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY

When asked, Judge Kozicky indicates that she does not have any specifically defined judicial "philosophy" except that which is appropriate for all district court judges, which is to "follow the law." Interviewing judicial candidates for both the appellate and district courts emphasized to her the importance of this distinction, she says. When asked for suggestions for lawyers appearing before her, she emphasized that she is "very approachable." "I know the bar is going to have many questions about me because I did not practice criminal law. I want them to know that I am very open to having conversations in chambers so long as both sides are present," she stated.

Judge Kozicky believes that it is important for judges to maintain a degree of independence but it is also important for them to be active in their community. She said she has had to resign from some organizations but has found other, more suitable ways to serve her community. For example, she has recently been named to the Board of Trustees for the Wayzata Community Church.

Judge Kozicky names as her judicial role models Kathleen Blatz, Edward Toussaint Jr., and Gordon Shumaker Jr., all of whom she worked with while in the governor’s office. She says she admires their intellect, demeanor, involvement, and ability to stay personable while getting the job done.

Back to Top

 

   

Back to Top

 
   
   

   

Legal Notice

Hennepin County Bar Association.   600 Nicollet Mall #390,Minneapolis, MN 55402.   Phone: 612-752-6600.