UPDATE: Motion for Clarification Returns From the Void (Twice)
Date: November 23, 2025
Event: Plaintiff refiled her Motion for Clarification of Record, Status of May 23, 2025 Appeal, and Unruled July Motions after the district court returned the original November 14 filing with a defective deficiency notice. The refiled motion complies with the Minnesota Court of Appeals' November 12 directive authorizing Plaintiff to raise unresolved procedural issues in the district court.
A Motion With a Timeline Only TylerTech Could Love
Plaintiff first filed the Motion for Clarification on November 14, 2025. Instead of docketing it, court administration mailed it back on November 17 with a Deficiency Notice that:
- used an address Plaintiff has not had on the record since February 4, 2025;
- claimed the filing was defective for not using e-service, even though self-represented litigants are not required to e-serve under Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 14.05;
- instructed Plaintiff to sign up for e-service to proceed, a requirement that does not exist in rule or statute.
After correcting the caption and memorializing the improper return, Plaintiff refiled the motion on November 23, 2025, expressly noting that the earlier attempt had been prevented from entering the record.
What the Motion Actually Seeks
In line with the Court of Appeals' November 12 order, the motion asks the district court to finally pin down:
- The status of the May 23, 2025 appeal that was filed, acknowledged, then seemingly evaporated;
- Which versions of disputed orders are operative (unsigned originals vs. mysteriously later-signed "fixed" versions);
- What happened to the July 2025 motions (Recusal, Rule 107 Referee Objection, and Reassignment/Clarification), none of which have rulings in the record;
- Whether clerical corrections under Rule 60.01 are required to reconcile contradictory dockets and orders; and
- Whether the court intends to issue belated rulings or confirm the absence of any.
In short: to force the record to choose a single timeline instead of behaving like experimental fiction with multiple endings.
The Returned Filing: A Paper Trail of Its Own
The motion includes an attached statement documenting the November 17 return. The deficiency notice:
- listed Plaintiff's address as 31 Pierce Street, Concord NH, an address removed from the record on February 4, 2025;
- contradicted rule-based service requirements by insisting on e-service enrollment;
- treated the filing as optional "judge's discretion," despite the Court of Appeals explicitly ordering Plaintiff to bring these issues to the district court.
The result: a procedurally required motion was prevented from entering the record until refiling.
Legal Basis
The motion rests on:
- Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 107 (right to district judge review of referee rulings);
- Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.01 (clerical error corrections);
- Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03 (requirement of a complete, reviewable appellate record);
- and the November 12, 2025 Court of Appeals Directive allowing these issues to be raised below.
These aren't optional clarifications—they're required for the appellate court to conduct review that isn't based on contradictory, missing, or retroactively altered documents.
Relief Requested
- A determination of the status of the May 23, 2025 appeal;
- A declaration of which order versions are operative;
- Rulings on the July 2025 motions or confirmation of their absence;
- Corrections to the Register of Actions and underlying orders under Rule 60.01;
- Docketing of this motion and issuance of written findings for appellate use.
In other words: a request for the district court to stop letting the record do improv theater.