 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Richardson v. Biff's Billiards Sports Bar & Grill11/18/2003
to amend largely depends on whether it was correct in an underlying legal ruling. Id. at 762.
Using this test, the district court erred in denying appellant's September 30, 2002 motion to amend, under both the de novo and abuse of discretion standards. Paragraphs III through XIII of appellant's initial complaint allege the elements of a dram shop claim, and paragraphs XII and XIII make it clear that both appellant and her children suffered personally. The amended complaint relies on the same allegations that were alleged in the original complaint, the only difference being the change in caption. Respondents were put on notice that appellant and her children were suing personally because the allegations include reference to both her and her children's personal injuries. The amended complaint would not change the respondents' defense, legal theory, or strategy, and all discovery already conducted would also apply to the amended complaint.
At oral arguments, respondents claimed they will suffer prejudice if appellant is allowed to amend and to change the caption of the case. Respondents did not raise this issue to the district court, it was not addressed by the district court, and respondents did not claim this argument in their briefs. Absent exigent circumstances, appellate courts only consider those issues that were presented to and considered by the district court. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988). We, therefore, do not address this issue on appeal.
The district court also dismissed appellant's motion to file an amended and supplemental complaint against Mary Obert. Because respondents had filed their answer to the initial complaint, appellant needed to receive either respondents' consent or leave from the court to amend the caption to add an additional defendant. Minn. R. Civ. P. 15.01. Appellant did not do so. We affirm the district court's dismissal of appellant's amended complaint as served on Mary Obert. The Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure state how to amend a complaint. Allowing complaints after parties have expressly violated the rules would give parties little incentive to follow the court rules. Therefore, the amended and supplemental complaint against Mary Obert was ineffective. On remand, the district court should consider any proper motions to add Mary Obert under the test in Haugland.
Because we reverse the district court's dismissal of appellant's motion to amend her complaint, we do not need to reach the issue of whether the statute of limitations was tolled by the Pennsylvania or the district court's order. We further do not need to address appellant's argument that respondents waived or were estopped from claiming a statute of limitations defense.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
|