Cited by

The purpose of notice pleading is to “fairly notify the opposing party of the claim against it,” with the focus being “on the ‘incident’ rather than on the specific facts of the incident.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., -05 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

5 Appellate courts “review de novo whether a complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

“[W]e are not bound by legal conclusions stated in a complaint when determining whether the complaint survives a motion to dismiss.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

See Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., -05 (Minn. 2014) (reaffirming that “Minnesota is a notice- pleading state,” where “short and general statements of fact in complaints” that “fairly notify the opposing party of the claim against it” are adequate to state a claim (quotation omitted)).

See Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

1B Health & Welfare Fund “A” v. CVS Caremark Corp., accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construing all reasonable inferences in favor of the complaint, Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

“We accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

Appellate courts “review de novo whether a complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

3 technical, broad-brush pleadings.” Demskie v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, d 382, 387 (Minn. 2024) (quoting Walsh v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, ).

On appeal, we review de novo “whether a complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

Appellate courts “review de novo whether a complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief” and, in doing so, they “accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., (reviewing a district court’s grant of a rule 12.02(e) motion); see also Burt v. Rackner, Inc., (“We review a district court’s decision on a Rule 12.03 motion de novo to determine whether the complaint sets forth a legally s

8 [the whistleblower statute] because there was no such ‘employment’ at the time the defamation lawsuit was filed.” DECISION When reviewing the dismissal of a complaint under rule 12, we must “accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

“We accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

Appellate courts review de novo “whether a complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

See Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

A claim survives a Rule 12.02(e) motion to dismiss “if it is possible on any evidence which might be produced, consistent with the pleader’s theory, to grant the relief demanded.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

P. 12.02(e), a defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” “A claim is sufficient against a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim if it is possible on any evidence which might be produced, consistent with the pleader’s theory, to grant the relief demanded.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

We “accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

“A claim is sufficient against a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim if it is possible on any evidence 6 which might be produced, consistent with the pleader’s theory, to grant the relief demanded.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

In Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., –02 (Minn. 2014), we analyzed the history of Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 8.01, which establishes pleading requirements in Minnesota state courts.

“[W]hen interpreting a rule, we look first to the plain language of the rule and its purpose.” (quoting Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., ).

P. 12.02(e), a defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” “A claim is sufficient against a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim if it is possible on any evidence which might be produced, consistent with the pleader’s theory, to grant the relief demanded.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

4 See Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

“A claim is sufficient against a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim if it is possible on any evidence which might be produced, consistent with the pleader’s theory, to grant the relief demanded.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

A complaint will survive a rule 12.02(e) motion “if it is possible on any evidence which might be produced, consistent with the pleader’s theory, to grant the relief demanded.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

See Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 15 (Minn. 2014) (recognizing that a rule’s unambiguous plain language is controlling, but that “its purpose and history, and its procedural context,” are also relevant to its interpretation); (“The words of a court r

Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

“Minnesota is a notice-pleading state and does not require absolute specificity in pleading, but rather requires only information sufficient to fairly notify the opposing party of the claim against it.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., -05 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

In analyzing the sufficiency of a claim, appellate courts “accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

P. 12.02(e), we “accept facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., see also Halva v. Minn. State Colls.

Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., (“[W]e now decline to engraft the plausibility standard from [Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007),] and [Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009),] onto our traditional interpretation of Minn. R. Civ.