Opinion ID: 1851907
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Untimely Motion to Dismiss

Text: Plaintiff argues that since the defendants' motion for dismissal and motion for summary judgment were not timely filed, [9] the trial court erred in granting defendant Lappegaard's motion for dismissal and could properly rule only on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Defendant Hoaglund's motion for summary judgment is governed by Rule 56, Rules of Civil Procedure, under which a minimum of 10 days' notice is required before the time fixed for the hearing. Defendant Lappegaard's motion for dismissal is governed by Rule 6.04, under which 5 days' notice is required. Clearly, if plaintiff had not moved for summary judgment, it would have been error for the trial court to consider the motions absent a waiver of these notice requirements. Under the circumstances of this case, however, the trial court acted properly. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was properly before the court at the January 30 hearing. Under Rule 56 governing summary judgments, a judgment is to be rendered if there is no issue of material fact and either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Even if defendants had filed no motions, the court could properly have found, just as it did, that the complaint failed to state a cause of action and could therefore have ordered the action dismissed. Since the result would have been correct in the absence of defendants' motions, the fact that those motions were defective could not have prejudiced plaintiff and thus there is no cause for reversal. Affirmed. TODD, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.