CC PACKET 10112016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

conclusion); see also, Schroeder v. St. Louis County, 708 N.W.2d 497, 507 (Minn. 2006). However, the nonmoving party must present evidence beyond that which creates a mere metaphysical doubt about an essential element of the case. DLH, Inc., 566 N.W.2d at 71. “A self- serving affidavit that contradicts other testimony is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.” Risdall v. Brown-Wilbert, Inc., 759 N.W.2d 67, 72 (Minn. 2009) (citing Barbury v. Omnitrition Int’l, Inc., 533 N.W.2d 876, 881 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995)). A. The Record. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ affidavits filed in support of their summary judgment motion on August 23, 2016. Plaintiffs argue the additional affidavits were in response to an argument not previously raised. The affidavits were filed untimely, and the Court will not consider them. A motion for summary judgment under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 56.02 is conducted in accordance with Minnesota General Rule of Practice 115.03. Rule 115.03 requires a party to serve “[a]ny affidavits and exhibits to be submitted in conjunction with the motion” at least 28 days prior to the hearing. Minn. Gen. R Prac. 115.03(a)(3). Parties are allowed to file a reply memorandum, including additional affidavits in some limited circumstances, if the responsive memorandum raises issues not raised in the moving party’s original memorandum. Id. at (c); Bradley v. First Nat’l Bank of Walker, N.A., 711 N.W.2d 121, 128 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006); Mortensen v. Swanson, No. A12-1314, 2013 WL 869940, at *2 (Minn. Ct. App. March 11, 2013) (unpublished). That is not the case here. Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion was based in part on the allegation in the Complaint that Aeon complied with the requirements of subdivision 6 when it asserted its right of first refusal. Defendants have always denied that Aeon complied with subdivision 6. It was Plaintiffs’ burden 47