Cited by

Personal jurisdiction is “a legal right protecting the individual,” (quotation omitted), and a party may waive an inadequate-service-of-process defense and consent to personal jurisdiction, Rued v. Comm’r of Hum.

Corp., – 67 (Minn. 2000) (citing Minn. R. Civ.

Corp., (“Our case law demonstrates that a defendant is free to proceed on the merits of a case without fear of waiving the [personal jurisdiction] defense so long as the court has been provided an opportunity to determine the validity of the defense.”).

Corp., and that “the rules are to be liberally construed so as to serve the interests of justice and so as to discourage reliance on technicalities and form,” Larson v. Indep.

Corp., -67 (Minn. 2000).

Larson v. New Richland Care Ctr.

P. 4.03.1 But where a party has not previously moved to dismiss an acti on on the ground of insufficiency of service, “moving for a decision on the merits of part of a cla im invites the court to exercise its authority on behalf of the moving party and implicitly acquiesces to the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over that party.”

See Patterson v. Wu Family Corp. , n.4 (Minn. 2000).

Patterson v. W u Family Corp., ; aff’d

“[O]nce a defendant affirmatively invokes the court’s power to determine the merits of all or part of a claim, the defendant cannot then deny the court’s jurisdiction over him.” (citation omitted) (“A party who takes or consents to any step in a proceeding w hich assumes that jurisdiction exists or continues has made a general appearance which subjects him to the jurisdiction of the court.

(quoting United States v. Tyerman, 641 F.3d 936, 943 (8th Cir. 2011)).Where our rules of procedure parallel federal rules, “federal cases interpreting the federal rule are helpful and instructive but not necessarily controlling.” n.4 (Minn. 2000).

See Patterson v. Wu Family Corp. , , 866-68 (Minn. 2000) (addressing circumstances in which party to civil action may be determined to have waived defense of insufficient service of process); Thiele v. Stich , , 582 (Minn. 1988) (holding that "reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that ...

P. 15.04, addr essing district court’s role to reject or accept plea agreements); n.4 (Minn. 2000) (quotation omitted) (“Where our rules of procedure parallel the federal rules, federal cases interpreting the federal rule are helpful and instructive but not necessarily controlling on our interpretation of the state counterpart.”).

Patterson v. Wu Family Corp ., see also Wachsmuth v. Johnson , (rejecting personal- 3 We note, moreover, that even if grandmot her and mother had initiated an action under section 257C.03 and served written notice of the petition upon father, f

P. 12.08(a); Patterson v. Wu Family Corp ., (“A defendant who submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court cannot later raise a defense of insufficient service.”).

(stating that a defendant who has “affirmatively invoked the jurisdiction of the court to rule in its favor” has waived personal jurisdiction).

aced the juvenile “in the very predicament” the appellate rules are intended to eliminate); Commandeur LLC v. Howard Hartry, Inc., -12 (Minn. 2006) (construing “legal holiday” to include Columbus Day even though, the judicial branch does not recognize that holiday, based in part on a ‘“preference that actions be determined on the merits’ ” ()); Tombs v, Ashworth, 255 Minn. 55 , (noting that in general “‘limitations upon the time for taking an appeal are to be liberally construed to avoid a forfe

A party waives the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction if the party “has affirmatively invoked the jurisdiction of the court to rule in its 3 favor.”

See Shamrock Dev., -82 (Minn. 2008); -67 (Minn. 2000).

d 496, 505 (Minn. 2009); -67 (Minn. 2000).

Co., (explaining that the court obtains jurisdiction over a defendant through proper service of process); (explaining that proper service of process “serves the important function of actual, formal notice to the defendant of the action”).

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

I. “On appeal from a grant of summary judgment, we must determine whether any genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.”

“On appeal from a grant of summary judgment, we must determine whether any genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.”

This occurs when the defendant “fail[s] to provide the court an opportunity to rule on the [insufficient service] defense before affirmatively invoking the courts jurisdiction on the merits of the claim.”

Rather, it is the failure to provide the court an opportunity to rule on the defense before affirmatively invoking the court’s jurisdiction on the merits of the claim that is determinative.”