Laserfiche WebLink
This Court is mindful of the fact that "the use of Rule 41.02(a) is infrequent and is <br />within the sound discretion of the trial court." Hansen v. Wennblom, 2006 WL 3490963 <br />at 3 (Minn.App.) citing Bonhiver v. Fugelso, Porter, Simich & Whiteman, Inc., 355 <br />N.W.2d 138, 144 (Minn.1984). A district court's decision to dismiss necessarily depends <br />upon circumstances peculiar to each case, considered with reference to the right of the <br />parties to the action to a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of the case and the <br />policy underlying the dismissal rules of preventing harassment and unreasonable delays <br />in litigation. Hansen at 3, citing Firoved v. Gen. Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283 -84, <br />152 N.W.2d 364, 368 -69 (1967). <br />Motion for Summary Judgment <br />Plaintiff, Dayspring seeks summary judgment that Defendant, Little Canada is <br />liable to Dayspring for $602;433.00 in damages suffered by Dayspring as a result of <br />Little Canada's unlawful conduct. This Court has granted Little Canada's Motion to <br />Dismiss Dayspring's claims. Because Dayspring no longer has any viable claims, this <br />Court will not address the Motion for Summary Judgment. <br />After reviewing the affidavits submitted by both parties in connection with these <br />motions, and hearing the arguments of counsel, it is clear that a dispute exists regarding <br />invoices Little Canada submitted to Dayspring for expenses incurred by Little Canada. <br />However, the potential collection of fees and expenses by Little Canada is not an issue <br />before this Court. This Court is unaware if Little Canada will be pursuing any legal <br />action to collect any fees or expenses, but if they do, this Order does not limit the <br />defenses Dayspring may bring in such an action. <br />TRW <br />9 <br />