Jerry Wayne Cole v. Alexander Allen Wutzke, 868 N.W.2d 925

Cole was served June 5, 2013 after an auto accident; he served the summons and complaint on the defendant and later filed the complaint in district court on July 25, 2014.
Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.04(a) (amended effective July 1, 2013) requires filing nonfamily civil actions within one year of service or the action is deemed dismissed; the supreme court delayed involuntary dismissals under the rule until July 1, 2014.
Defendant moved to dismiss and requested formal entry of judgment as deemed dismissed under rule 5.04(a); Cole moved to vacate/reinstate under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02, arguing his counsel mistakenly believed the filing requirement did not apply to pending actions.
The district court acknowledged Cole’s 60.02 motion but concluded attorney ignorance was not excusable neglect and ordered dismissal with prejudice and entry of judgment.
On appeal, the court considered whether relief under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 could prevent entry of judgment after noncompliance with rule 5.04(a) and evaluated the four rule-60.02 factors.
The Court of Appeals held that when a plaintiff opposes dismissal and addresses the 60.02 factors, the district court abuses its discretion by entering judgment if 60.02 relief is warranted; here all factors favored Cole.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a court may order entry of judgment for an action deemed dismissed under Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.04(a) when plaintiff seeks relief under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02	Cole argued he was entitled to relief under rule 60.02 and that the court should not enter judgment if 60.02 relief was appropriate	Wutzke argued rule 5.04(a) compels dismissal and finality; entry of judgment was proper	Court held entry of judgment is an abuse of discretion if 60.02 relief is appropriate; reversed and remanded
Whether attorney’s mistaken belief about applicability of the amended rule constitutes excusable neglect under rule 60.02	Cole argued his counsel’s misapprehension was excusable and courts shouldn’t punish an innocent client for counsel’s error	Wutzke argued ignorance of law is not excusable neglect	Court held attorney error/misapprehension can constitute excusable neglect; factor favored Cole
Whether the remaining 60.02 factors (diligence and prejudice) support relief	Cole acted promptly upon learning of deemed dismissal and before entry of judgment; argued no meaningful prejudice to defendant	Wutzke asserted prejudice and a defeated expectation of finality under rule 5.04(a)	Court found Cole diligent and that defendant suffered no substantial prejudice; both factors favored relief

Coller v. Guardian Angels Roman Catholic Church, 294 N.W.2d 712 (Minn. 1980) (attorney-caused default may justify relief under rule 60.02)
Kosloski v. Jones, 203 N.W.2d 401 (Minn. 1973) (relief from default judgment appropriate where counsel’s conduct caused default)
Finden v. Klaas, 128 N.W.2d 748 (Minn. 1964) (courts should grant relief under circumstances meeting rule-60.02 factors)
Northland Temps., Inc. v. Turpin, 744 N.W.2d 398 (Minn. App. 2008) (articulating the four rule-60.02 factors to guide relief determinations)
Charson v. Temple Israel, 419 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. 1988) (courts should avoid punishing an innocent client for counsel’s neglect)