Issue: Under Minnesota rules, when may the court hear new issues raised in a response to a motion?
|Area of Law:||Litigation & Procedure|
|Keywords:||Motion raising new issues; Response|
|Cited Cases:||470 N.W.2d 154; 464 N.W.2d 130; 60 N.W.2d 74|
|Cited Statutes:||Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 303.03(a)(2), R. 303.03(b), Rule 303.03(a)(2); Minn. Stat. § 549.21 (1990)|
The Minnesota Rules of General Practice require that, if a party responding to a motion raises new issues in their response, opposing counsel and the court must be served and filed with a copy of the notice of the Notice of Motion, Motion, and any supporting affidavits or memorandums of law “at least 10 days prior to the hearing.” Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 303.03(a)(2). If a moving party fails to comply with these requirements, the court may cancel the hearing. Id. at R. 303.03(b). In the alternative, the court may “refuse to permit oral argument by the party not filing the required documents, may consider the matter unopposed, may allow reasonable attorney’s fees, or may take other appropriate action.” Id.
The trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to admit late filings into evidence. Uselman v. Uselman, 464 N.W.2d 130, 138 (Minn. 1990)FN1; Wolfe v. City of Austin, 240 Minn. 165, 168, 60 N.W.2d 74, 76-77 (1953) (noting discretion of court to allow for late submissions). In Sorenson v. Sorenson, C7-98-1617 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 1999) (unpublished opinion), it was noted that a court has discretion in determining whether it will accept untimely affidavits under Rule 303.03(a)(2) of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice. The court held that such discretion was appropriately exercised, even where both parties submitted late affidavits and only one party’s were accepted.
Axford v. Axford, 402 N.W.2d 143 […]