MNRCP Rule 5

From LegalLanding

Below is Rule 5 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 5 deals with Service and Filing of Pleadings and Other Papers, and is indexed under Chapter II, dealing with Commencement of The Action; Service of Process, Pleadings, Motions, and Orders.

5.01 Service; When Required; Appearance

Except as otherwise provided in these rules, every order required by its terms to be served, every pleading subsequent to the original complaint unless the court otherwise orders because of numerous defendants, every written motion other than one which may be heard ex parte, and every written notice, appearance, demand, offer of judgment, designation of record on appeal, and similar paper shall be served upon each of the parties. No service need be made on parties in default for failure to appear except that pleadings asserting new or additional claims for relief against them shall be served upon them in the manner provided for service of summons in Rule 4 A party appears when that party serves or files any paper in the proceeding.

5.02 Service; How Made

Whenever under these rules service is required or permitted to be made upon a party represented by an attorney, the service shall be made upon the attorney unless service upon the party is ordered by the court. Written admission of service by the party or the party’s attorney shall be sufficient proof of service. Service upon the attorney or upon a party shall be made by delivering a copy to the attorney or party; transmitting a copy by facsimile machine to the attorney or party’s office; or by mailing a copy to the attorney or party at the attorney’s or party’s last known address or, if no address is known, by leaving it with the court administrator. Delivery of a copy within this rule means: Handing it to the attorney or to the party; or leaving it at the attorney’s or party’s office with a clerk or other person in charge thereof; or, if there is no one in charge, leaving it in a conspicuous place therein; or, if the office is closed or the person to be served has no office, leaving it at the attorney’s or party’s dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein. Service by mail is complete upon mailing. Service by facsimile is complete upon completion of the facsimile transmission.

(Amended effective January 1, 1997.)

5.03 Service: Numerous Defendants

If the defendants are numerous, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, may order that service of the pleadings of the defendants and replies thereto need not be made as between the defendants and that any cross-claim, counterclaim, or matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense contained therein shall be deemed to be denied or avoided by all other parties and that the filing of any such pleading with the court and service thereof upon the plaintiff constitutes due notice of it to the parties. A copy of every such order shall be served upon the parties in such manner and form as the court directs.

5.04 Filing; Certificate of Service

All papers after the complaint required to be served upon a party, together with a certificate of service, shall be filed with the court within a reasonable time after service, except expert disclosures and reports, depositions upon oral examination and interrogatories, requests for documents, requests for admission, and answers and responses thereto shall not be filed unless upon order of the court or for use in the proceeding.

The administrator shall not refuse to accept for filing any paper presented for that purpose solely because it is not presented in proper form as required by these rules or any local rules or practices.

(Amended effective March 1, 2001.)

5.05 Filing; Facsimile Transmission

Any paper may be filed with the court by facsimile transmission. Filing shall be deemed complete at the time that the facsimile transmission is received by the court and the filed facsimile shall have the same force and effect as the original. Only facsimile transmission equipment that satisfies the published criteria of the Supreme Court shall be used for filing in accordance with this rule.

Within five days after the court has received the transmission, the party filing the document shall forward the following to the court:

(a) a $25 transmission fee for each 50 pages, or part thereof, of the filing;

(b) any bulky exhibits or attachments; and

(c) the applicable filing fee or fees, if any.

If a paper is filed by facsimile, the sender’s original must not be filed but must be maintained in the files of the party transmitting it for filing and made

available to the court or any party to the action upon request.

Upon failure to comply with the requirements of this rule, the court in which the action is pending may make such orders as are just, including but not limited to, an order striking pleadings or parts thereof, staying further proceedings until compliance is complete, or dismissing the action, proceeding, or any part thereof.

(Amended effective January 1, 2006.)

Advisory Committee Comment--1993 Amendments

The amendment to Rule 5.04 makes it unnecessary to file notice of taking depositions in the vast majority of cases. Filing may be required as a condition precedent to issuance of a deposition subpoena pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 45.04(a), though that rule only requires proof of service to be shown, not filed, and does not require filing of the notice itself in either event. The notice need not be filed because court administrators should issue subpoenas without the filing of the notice. In practice, courts have little use for deposition notices in court files, and in those rare circumstances where reference to them is necessary, they can be attached as exhibits to an affidavit, filed by leave of court, or offered in evidence just as any other discovery request or response.

Advisory Committee Comments--1996 Amendments

Most of Rule 5.02 is new and for the first time provides for service by facsimile. Service by this method has become widespread, generally handled either by express agreement of counsel or acquiescence in a service method not explicitly authorized by rule.

The committee considered a suggestion that the provision for leaving a document with the court administrator be changed, deleted, or clarified. Although it is not clear from the rule what the administrator should do in the rare event that a document is filed with the administrator rather than delivered or mailed to the attorney, the committee believes the rule should be retained as it provides notice to the court that although service may comply with the rule, effective notice has not been received by the party entitled to notice. This will facilitate the court’s consideration of the sufficiency of service under all of the circumstances.

The amendment to Rule 5.02 provides an express mechanism for service by facsimile. Service by facsimile has become widely accepted and is used in Minnesota either by agreement or presumption that it is acceptable under the rules or at least has not been objected to by the parties. The committee believes an express authorization for service by facsimile is appropriate and preferable to the existing silence on the subject. The committee’s recommendation is modeled on similar provisions in the Wisconsin and Florida rules. See Wis. Stat. sections 801.14(2) & .15(5)(b); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.080(b)(5). Service by facsimile is allowed in other jurisdictions as well. See, e.g., Ill. S. Ct. R. 11(b)(4); S. Dak. R. 15-6-5(b); Cal. R. Civ. P. 2008.

In addition providing for service by facsimile, Rule 6.05 is amended to create a specific deadline for timely service. This rule adds an additional day for response to any paper served by any means other than mail(where 3 extra days are allowed under existing Rule 6.05, which is retained) and where service is not effected until after 5:00 p.m., local time. This rule is intended to discourage, or at least make unrewarding, the inappropriate practice of serving papers after the close of a normal business day. Service after 5:00 p.m. is still timely as of the day of service if the deadline for service is that day, but if a response is permitted, the party served has an additional day to respond. This structure parallels directly the mechanism for dealing with service by mail under the existing rule.

Rule 5.05 is amended to add a provision relating to filing that was adopted as part of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(e) in 1991. It is important that Rule 5 specifically provide that the court administrator must accept for filing documents tendered for that purpose regardless of any technical deficiencies they may contain. The court may, of course, direct that those deficiencies be remedied or give substantive importance to the deficiencies of the documents. The sanction of closing the courthouse to the filing should not be imposed or if imposed, should be imposed by a judge only after reviewing the document and the circumstances surrounding its filing. The rejection of documents for filing may have dire consequences for litigants and is not authorized by statute or rule.

Advisory Committee Comment - 2000 Amendments

The last sentence of Rule 5.04 is changed to broaden the direction to court administrators not to reject documents for filing for noncompliance with the form requirements of the rules. The rule as amended makes it clear that those form requirements, regardless of which set of rules contains them, should not be the basis for a refusal to file the document. Any deficiency as to form should be dealt with by appropriate court order, including in most cases an opportunity to cure the defect.

Advisory Committee Comment—2006 Amendments

Rule 5.05 is amended to delete the requirement that an “original” document follow the filing by facsimile. The requirement of a double filing causes confusion and unnecessary burdens for court administrators, and with the dramatic improvement in quality of received faxes since this rule was adopted in 1988, it no longer serves a useful purpose. Under the amended rule, the document filed by facsimile is the original for all purposes unless an issue arises as to its authenticity, in which case the version transmitted electronically and retained by the sender can be reviewed.

The filing fee for fax filings in Rule 5.05 is changed from $5.00 to $25.00 because fax filings, even under the streamlined procedures of the amended rule, still impose significant administrative burdens on court staff, and it is therefore appropriate that this fee, unchanged since the rule’s adoption in 1988, be increased. A number of committee members expressed the view that facsimile filing was, and still is, intended to be a process used on a limited basis in exigent or at least unusual circumstances. It is not intended to be a routine filing method

The rule does not provide a specific mechanism for collecting the transmission fee required under the rule. Because prejudice may occur to a party if a filing is deemed ineffective, the court should determine the appropriate consequences of failure to pay the necessary fee.