Issue: Under Minnesota law, in what circumstances must a judge grant a motion to amend a complaint?
| Area of Law: | Litigation & Procedure |
| Keywords: | Motion to amend a complaint; Granting |
| Jurisdiction: | Minnesota |
| Cited Cases: | 399 N.W.2d 593; 504 N.W.2d 758; 130 N.W.2d 505 |
| Cited Statutes: | None |
| Date: | 02/01/2001 |
The decision of whether to allow a motion for amendment rests within the discretion of the trial court judge. Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. 1993). Rule 15.01 allows the court liberality in determining whether to grant leave to amend a complaint as “justice so requires.” Envall v. I.S.D. #704, 399 N.W.2d 593 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). In ordinary circumstances, the mere fact that the defendant may have to defend an additional claim or proffer an additional defense is not sufficient to prohibit the amendment. Id. (citing Hughes v. Micka, 269 Minn. 268, 275, 130 N.W.2d 505, 510 (1964)). The mere fact that a defendants does not believe plaintiff has a claim is not a valid basis for refusing to allow the plaintiff to pursue his or her claim. If this were true, the need for a judge or jury would be virtually eliminated.
The court in the case of Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 526 N.W.2d 402 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995) states that a “court should not grant a motion to amend a complaint where the amendment is not based upon a supportable legal theory or where the movant fails to establish evidence to support his claim.” Plaintiff has read this decision and fails to ascertain that same maxim. In fact, the Copeland decision concerns a motion of the defendant to dismiss for failure to prosecute, not as a result of a request to amend the […]