I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
In DeCook v. Olmsted Medical Center, Inc., the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a decision that may signal a shift towards a more pragmatic application of Minnesota’s rules of service. In DeCook, the court held that a party can properly amend a summons and complaint as long as it does not substantially burden the defendant. In addition, the court held that alternative methods of service through an agent, such as e-mail, are sufficient if consented to by the defendant. As part of this decision, the court held that the plaintiff has the initial burden of producing evidence to show an alternative method of service existed, which, if met, shifts the burden to the defendant to establish that the method of service was ineffective.
This Note begins by giving a selected history of service and rules of civil procedure, an overview of traditional and technology- aided ways of effectuating service, and an overview of the history of notice pleading in federal and Minnesota state courts. Next, this Note explores the DeCook decision, discussing the facts of the case and the rationale of both the majority and dissenting opinions.
Although this Note concludes that the majority came to the correct decision, justice would be better served if the court adopted what this author calls the “reasonable actual notice” standard. Doing so, this Note contends, would better align with the policy behind both the Federal and Minnesota Rules of Civil procedure and would allow for greater flexibility in a shifting legal landscape. If Minnesota courts find it prudent to adopt the “reasonable actual notice” standard, this author proposes a modified burden-shifting framework that may better ensure disputes are resolved on their merits.