On June 28, 2023, the Minnesota Supreme Court unveiled its latest opus, an interpretation of the esteemed Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 5.04 in Glen Edin of Edinburgh Ass’n v. Hiscox Ins. Co., No. A21-0761, 2023 WL 4218116 (Minn. June 28, 2023).
Rule 5.04 governs the enigmatic art of “pocket service.” Pocket service involves serving the complaint on the defendant without filing it with the court. Rule 5.04 declares that this “action” must ultimately find its way into the court’s embrace through filing within one year of its service.
Why would someone risk the missing their deadline with pocket service?
Pocket service, a hidden gem in the arsenal of legal warfare, can give a party additional leverage for the dance of settlement negotiations, all while maintaining a flexibility by not locking oneself within the court system just yet. But heed this warning, dear litigant, failing to file the complaint within a year can invoke dire consequences, such as dismissal with prejudice. Thus, if you employ the tool of pocket service to initiate your lawsuit, let the deadline for filing the complaint be a radiant star, encircled and highlighted, its importance etched in your very soul. And, with utmost diligence, ensure that the summons and complaint are filed before the hands of time slip past one year.
Looking back to Glen Edin, the dispute considered by the supreme court was over insurance coverage. Respondent Glen Edin served appellant Hiscox with a summons and complaint in June 2019. Glen Edin did not file the summons and complaint with the district court at that time. But in October 2019, Glen Edin filed a copy of the summons and complaint as an exhibit to an affidavit included with a memorandum in support of its motion for an appointment of a neutral umpire for appraisal. This is the date that the court ultimately held as the date of filing for the complaint.
In January 2020, within a year of the served summons and complaint, Hiscox filed its answer to the original complaint with the district court. Glen Edin did not file its summons and complaint as a standalone document until March 2021, more than one year after it had served Hiscox with the summons and complaint.
In its journey to the Minnesota Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals held that Rule 5.04 was satisfied when the plaintiff filed the complaint or when the defendant filed the answer with the district court.
A meager majority of the supreme court disagreed, casting their judgment with authority. In its ruling, the MN Supreme Court found that Glen Edin ignored that under Rule 5.04(a), not only does an “action” need to be “filed,” but it also needs to be “commence[d].”
Looking next to Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.01, the supreme court held that a civil “action” is “commenced” upon the sacred ritual of serving the summons – while Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.02 demands that a copy of the complaint accompanies the summons, intertwining their destinies inextricably. Relying on Meeker v. IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., Minnesota courts, in their legal acumen, have long acknowledged that to commence an action under Rule 3, the summons and complaint form an inseparable bond, serving as the operative documents to be dutifully served.
The Minnesota Supreme Court, rather cheekily, continues to explain that “if [Rule 5.04(a) wasn’t] clear enough, Rule 3.01 references Rule 5.04 as the rule containing its ‘filing requirements.’ To put a finer point on it, the rule governing the summons (Rule 3.01) explicitly states that its ‘filing requirements’ are found in Rule 5.04. And this case asks us what must be filed under Rule 5.04. Putting two and two together, the ‘action’ that must be filed under Rule 5.04(a) is plainly the summons (and complaint, per Rule 3.02).”
So do not fall asleep when it comes to “pocket service” as it can mean disaster for your case.
Contact the attorneys at Hellmuth & Johnson to get started on your claim today and to ensure your rights are preserved.
