Minnesota Clarifies Standard on Motions to Dismiss Based on Pleadings

The Minnesota Supreme Court recently addressed whether a complaint must include facts sufficient to rebut all potential affirmative defenses.

In Hoskin v. Krsnak,___ N.W.3d ___ (Minn. 2025), the parties were long-term business partners. One of these partners, Hoskin, sold certain business interests to another partner, Krsnak. Hoskin signed transfer agreements as part of the sale of the interests.  After executing the agreements, Hoskin sued Krsnak alleging Hoskin’s consent to the transfer agreements was obtained through fraud and duress.

The Defendants moved to dismiss based on release language in the transfer agreements. The District Court granted the motion, holding the release language in the agreements barred Hoskin’s claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Hoskin appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

The Minnesota Supreme Court clarified the standard for reviewing a motion for judgment on the pleadings when the motion is based upon an affirmative defense. Specifically, the court addressed past precedent which suggested a plaintiff must anticipate an affirmative defense and allege facts in their complaint sufficient to rebut that affirmative defense to survive a motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court held that is not the standard.

This shift in case law is reflective of the change from code pleading to notice pleading. Under code pleading, parties were required to plead facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action (for plaintiffs) or a defense (for defendants). Code pleading was replaced with notice pleading when Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 8.01 was enacted. Under notice pleading, a pleading will be dismissed only if it appears to a certainty that no facts, which could be introduced consistent with the pleading, exist which would support granting the relief demanded.

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that placing the heightened standard of pleading on Hoskin from case law developed under code pleading did not comport with the concept of notice pleading under the Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff need not anticipate and rebut an affirmative defense in their complaint to survive a motion to dismiss based on that defense. Thus, the court found that a motion to dismiss based on an affirmative defense may be granted only if the allegations in the complaint, construed in the plaintiff’s favor, establish an unrebuttable defense.  This standard is markedly more liberal than the federal court Twombly pleading standard, which requires the Complaint to allege facts which demonstrate a plausible claim for relief.

Please reach out to the firm if you have any questions regarding this ruling.