Cited by

Caselaw supports “a broad interpretation of the concept of ‘some damage.’”

n.4 (Minn. 2006) (stating that when a district court considers matters outside the pleadings, a motion to dismiss should be treated as one for summary judgment).

“We have consistently held that the statute begins to run when the cause of action accrues, that is, when the plaintiff can allege sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” ; (“A cause of action accrues when all of the elements of the action have occurred, such that the cause of action could be brought and would survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”).

On appeal from summary judgment, we review de novo “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.”

4 “We have consistently held that the statute begins to run when the cause of action accrues, that is, when the plaintiff can allege sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

Under Minnesota law, a claim for legal malpractice accrues “when the plaintiff can allege su fficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

See id.; (stating that “We have .

P. 12.02; n.4 (Minn. 2006).

This is because “[u]ntil there is some damage, there is no claim and certainly a statute prescribing the time in which suit must be filed can 11 never operate prior to the time a suit would be permitted.” d 331, 336 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted).

Under this rule, “the statute of limitations begins to run when ‘some’ da mage has occurred as a result of the alleged [negligent act].” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Dalton , d at 585 (“Until there is some damage, there is no claim and certainly a st atute prescribing the time in which suit must be filed .

P. 12.02, “[i]f, on a motion asserting the defense that the pleading fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment.” n.4 (Minn. 2006).

P. 12.02, “[i]f, on a motion asserting the defense that the pleading fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment.” n.4 (Minn. 2006).

The court applied the "some damage" rule of accrual discussed in Antone v. Mirviss

P. 12.02; see also Antone v. Mirviss

Relying on Antone v. Mirviss , the court of appeals reasoned that the statute of limitations begins to run when the cause of action accrues, which is “when the plaintiff can allege sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Frederick, 2016 WL 4068931 , at *2 ( q

ur, the cause of action accrues, and the statute of limitations starts to run, at the time of the negligent act; (2) the “discovery” rule, under which the cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury; and (3) the “damage” rule, under which the cause of action accrues “when ‘some damage has occurred as a result of the alleged malpractice.’ ” -36 (Minn. 2006) (quoting, Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson, ).

We therefore determine “whether the [district] court erred in applying the law.”

ANALYSIS On appeal from summary judgment, we determine “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.”

In Antone v. Mirviss our supreme court determined that the “some damage” rule governs when the statute of limitations begins to run, which is upon “the occurrence of any compensable damage.”

P. 12.02 (“If, on a motion asserting the defense that the pleading fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment....”); , 334 n. 4 (Minn.2006) (reviewing a district court’s decision to grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss under a summary judgment standard of review because the parties presented, and the court did not exclude, affidavits in support of

The limitations period “begins to run when the cause of action accrues, that is, when the plaintiff can allege sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

d at 621 ; (noting that Minnesota follows the “some damage” rule under which a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff has suffered some damage).

When reviewing dismissal of a claim on summary judgment, we examine the record to determine (1) “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact,” and (2) “whether the district court erred in its application of the law.”

(applying the rule to a claim for legal malpractice); (holding that a breach of contract claim must be brought within six years of the action causing the breach).