 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Larsen v. Mayo Foundation12/18/2001
Appellants Patricia L. Larsen and Donald Larsen brought a medical-malpractice action against respondent Mayo Foundation in federal district court, and the case was dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. After the state legislature extended the relevant statute of limitations from two years to four years, appellants filed another action in federal court, and the case was dismissed as barred by res judicata.
Appellants then brought an action in state court. The state district court granted respondent's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case as barred by res judicata. By separate order, the district court granted respondent's motion for sanctions. Appellants seek remand for trial and dispute the award of sanctions. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellants filed their first medical-malpractice action against respondent in federal district court on May 29, 1998. On June 1, 1998, appellants mailed a copy of the summons and complaint to respondent along with an acknowledgment-of-service form. Respondent never signed or returned the acknowledgment form and refused to admit service. On June 24, 1998, respondent received an amended summons and complaint, which was filed on June 19, 1998, and again refused to sign or return the acknowledgement-of-service form. On September 8, 1998, the Olmsted County Sheriff's Department personally served respondent with the summons and complaint.
The federal district court dismissed respondents' action on the ground that it was barred by the two-year statute of limitations for medical-malpractice actions. Respondents appealed the decision to the federal court of appeals, and the court of appeals affirmed.
On November 22, 1999, after the state legislature extended the statute of limitations for medical malpractice from two years to four years, appellants brought a second action against respondent in federal district court. The federal district court dismissed the action as barred by res judicata. Appellants then brought an action in state court, and respondent moved for summary judgment and for sanctions. The district court dismissed the action as barred by res judicata and awarded respondent $2,500 for attorney fees.
DECISION
1. On appeal from summary judgment, two questions are asked: (1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and (2) whether the lower court erred in its application of the law. State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn. 1990). A reviewing court need not defer to the district court's application of the law when the material facts are not in dispute. Hubred v. Control Data Corp., 442 N.W.2d 308, 310 (Minn. 1989). "We review the applicability of res judicata de novo." Ascher v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 527 N.W.2d 122, 125 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. Mar. 21, 1995) (citation omitted).
A claim is barred by res judicata when: (1) there has been a final judgment on the merits, (2) the same cause of action is involved, and (3) the parties are identical. Wessling v. Johnson, 424 N.W.2d 795, 797 (Minn. App. 1988) (citation omitted).
Appellants do not dispute that the final two factors are met. Appellants argue, however, that there has been no final judgment on the merits because the complaint in the first federal action was served on respondent after the two-year statute of limitations expired, and therefore, the action was not commenced, and the federal court never acquired jurisdiction over respondent. Appellants contend that if the federal court never acquired jurisdiction, there could be no judgment on the merits.
Appellants cite no authority for their argument that serving a complaint after th
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|