Motion to Amend in Minnesota

Background

“Leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires.” (See Wilson, v. City of Eagan (1980) 297 N.W.2d 146, 151.)

“Minn. R. Civ. P. 15.01 provides that [a] party may amend a pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served .... [o]therwise a party may amend a pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party.” (See Sharkey v. City of Shoreview (2014) 853 N.W.2d 832, 834.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Whether leave should be given in a particular case depends upon a number of factors, including, in particular, prejudice to the adverse party.” (See Wilson, v. City of Eagan (1980) 297 N.W.2d 146, 151.)

“In deciding whether to permit an amendment, the district court may consider the stage of the proceedings and whether substantial delay would result.” (See GOEB v. THARALDSON, No. CX-98-2275, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 1999).)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

"Generally, the decision to permit or deny amendments to pleadings is within the discretion of the district court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion." (Minnehaha Bus. Ctr., LLC v. St. Paul Port Auth., Inc., A12-1815, at *8 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2013).)

But "a district court may properly deny an amendment to a complaint when the additional alleged claim cannot be maintained." (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “motions to amend the pleadings ordinarily are to be granted with liberality.” (See Holisak v. Northwestern National Bank (1973) 297 Minn. 248, 252.)

However, it is also well settled that “after a responsive pleading is filed, a party may amend only by agreement or by leave of court.” (See Sharkey v. City of Shoreview (2014) 853 N.W.2d 832, 835.)