Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute in Minnesota

Background

“Under Minn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(a), the district court may dismiss an action or claim for failure to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of the court.” (See In re The Bette R. Peterson Revocable Tr., No. A22-0430, at *3 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 19, 2022).)

“This dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits.” (See In re The Bette R. Peterson Revocable Tr., No. A22-0430, at *3 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 19, 2022).)

“A trial court may, upon its own motion, dismiss an action for failure to prosecute.” (See Minn.R.Civ.P. Rule 41.02(1); Wherley v. Foss, (1987) 416 N.W.2d 463, 464.)

"Use of Rule 41.02(1) is infrequent and is within the sound discretion of the trial court." (See id.)

“The record must be reviewed in the light most favorable to the trial court.” (See id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“While the rule permitting dismissal runs counter to the primary objective of the law to dispose of cases on their merits, equally compelling is the public policy that parties prosecute their cases with due diligence.” (See Wherley v. Foss, (1987) 416 N.W.2d 463, 464.)

“To reconcile these policies, the supreme court has stated that dismissal for failure to prosecute is appropriate only when (1) the delay prejudiced the defendants; and (2) the delay was unreasonable and inexcusable." (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“Dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute is within the discretion of the trial court.” (See Dorenkemper v. City of Eden Prairie (1986) 394 N.W.2d 546, 548.)

“A decision to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute will be reversed only upon an abuse of discretion.” (See id.)

“However, prejudice should not be presumed from the mere fact of delay.” (See id.)

“We view the record in the light most favorable to the trial court.” (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “a district court's decision to dismiss for failure to prosecute necessarily depends upon circumstances peculiar to each case, considered with reference to the right of the parties to the action to a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of the case and the policy underlying the dismissal rules of preventing harassment and unreasonable delays in litigation." (See Brouillette v. Lund, No. A07-1753, at *5 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 9, 2008).)

It is also well settled that “a dismissal for failure to prosecute necessarily operates on the presumption that the case has not been settled.” (See HUMANE SOC. v. FEDERATED HUMANE SOC (2000) 611 N.W.2d 587, 590.)