Fifth Street Towers
100 South 5th Street, Suite 1500
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1254
Please be advised that contacting Bassford Remele, P.A. by email does not establish a lawyer-client relationship. Instead, a written engagement agreement is required. By sending us an email, you agree that Bassford Remele, P.A. will have no duty to keep confidential the information you provide to it unless and until there is an engagement agreement.
If you agree, please click on the "Submit" button below to continue processing your email message.
Ms. Klander defends businesses and professionals against liability and malpractice claims in the consumer law defense, professional liability, and general liability arenas.
Also experienced in complex litigation and class action lawsuits, Ms. Klander regularly represents clients in both state and federal courts across the United States. She currently defends creditors and credit professionals against federal consumer statute claims, defends health care providers and professionals against liability claims, and represents businesses in a spectrum of commercial disputes. She also consults with and trains clients on compliance with state and federal regulations.
Zimmer v. Larson, No. A17-0836, 2018 WL 256742, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 2, 2018) (affirming summary judgment in favor of attorney defendants because the plaintiff could not produce evidence to prove that but for the attorneys’ alleged malpractice, the plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable result in the underlying real estate transaction).
Van Dyke v. Allina Health System, No. 27-cv-16-17481 (Hennepin Cnty. Minn. Mar. 27, 2017) (obtained an order dismissing a plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims because the complaint failed to allege compensable damages).
Treptow v. Sickler, No. 2-cv-16-2962 (Hennepin Cnty. Minn. Mar. 21, 2017) (obtained an order dismissing a plaintiff’s complaint for failure to meet basic pleading requirements under Minn. R. Civ. P. 8.01).
Binkley v. Allina Health Sys., 877 N.W.2d 547 (Minn. 2016) (the Minnesota Supreme Court granted immunity to the provider under the Minnesota Commitment Treatment Act holding that the Act applied to a provider’s good-faith actions not to admit a patient seeking voluntary admission).
Hill v. Accounts Receivable Servs., LLC, No. 16-219, 2016 WL 6462119 (D. Minn. Oct. 31, 2016) (successfully obtained an order dismissing the plaintiff's FDCPA claims because the plaintiff was not "actually misled" and the claims were "immaterial").
Martin v. First Financial Mgmt., No. 10-CV-16-235 (Carver Cnty. Minn. July 12, 2016) (successfully defended agency against FDCPA claims and obtained order dismissing the plaintiff’s claims on the grounds that the FDCPA does not apply to tort subrogation claims and imposing sanctions against the plaintiff for frivolous motion filing).
Bajwa v. Brady, No. 27-CV-15-13647 (Hennepin Cnty Minn. Feb. 11, 2016) (successfully defended client against legal malpractice claims and obtained order dismissing actions and imposing sanctions on plaintiff including filing injunction).
Gensel v. Performant Techs., No. 13-C-1196, 2015 WL 6158072 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 20, 2015) (successfully obtained an order staying litigation in the case until resolution of the FCC’s determination on TCPA rulings).
Powers v. Credit Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 13-2831, 2015 WL 160285 (8th Cir. Jan. 13, 2015) (successfully obtained reversal of federal district court order granting class certification on claims under the FDCPA because the claims lacked commonality and predominance and a class action was not a superior method of resolving the claims).
Blodgett v. Hanson, 555 F. App’x 639 (8th Cir. 2014) (affirming the district court’s order dismissing the plaintiff’s claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Acts and for interference with contractual relations and order enjoining the plaintiff from pursuing future similar litigation absent an attorney or court approval).
Erickson v. Performant Recovery, Inc., No. 12-2818, 2013 WL 3223367 (D. Minn. June 25, 2013) (opinion holding that the FDCPA requires that a validation notice be “sent,” not “received,” that opinions regarding a debtor’s creditworthiness do not amount to a FDCPA violation, and that a misrepresentation must be “material” to be a violation).
DeMoss v. Peterson, Fram & Bergman, No. 12-2197, 2013 WL 1881058 (D. Minn. May 6, 2013) (opinion holding that mortgage foreclosure activities, including a pre foreclosure notice with FDCPA language, are not taken “in connection with the collection of any debt” and therefore not subject to the FDCPA).