Rushing v. Rushing (Mar. 31, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
Rushing v. Rushing et al. and Christ Temple Apostolic Church-Fridley
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Minnesota (MN)
Court
Minnesota Supreme Court
Decided
Mar. 31, 2026
Disposition
Dismissed
Marcus Rushing, Appellant, v. Jessica M Rushing,..., Not Reported in N.W.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 905119Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.NOTICE: THIS DECISION IS NONPRECEDENTIALEXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY MINN. R. CIV. APP.P. 136.01(1)(C) AND MINN. ST. SEC. 480A.08(3).Court of Appeals of Minnesota.Marcus Rushing, Appellant,v.Jessica M Rushing, Respondent,Jeffery Smith, Respondent,Chardine Mitchell, Respondent,Christ Temple ApostolicChurch-Fridley, Respondent.A26-0437|Dated: March 31, 2026Considered and decided by Frisch, Chief Judge; Reyes,Judge; and Harris, Judge.SPECIAL TERM ORDER1Jennifer L. Frisch Chief Judge*1 BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, ANDPROCEEDINGS, AND FOR THE FOLLOWINGREASONS:This appeal was filed on March 10, 2026. According to thenotice of appeal, appellant Marcus Rushing seeks reviewof a March 9, 2026 order denying appellant's motion tovacate a March 5, 2026 dismissal order. In a March 11,2026 order, we questioned (a) whether the March 5, 2026order dismissing appellant's action without prejudice affectedappellant's substantial rights; (b) if not, whether the March 9,2026 order denying appellant's motion to vacate the dismissalorder is independently appealable; and (c) if not, whetherthis appeal must be dismissed. Appellant filed an informalmemorandum.The register of actions indicates that appellant suedrespondents Jessica Rushing, Jeffery Smith, ChardineMitchell, and Christ Temple Apostolic Church-Fridley inFebruary 2026. In a March 5, 2026 order, the district courtdismissed the action without prejudice for “failure to complywith Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.02(b).” The district court stated thatappellant “repeatedly cite[d] nonexistent legal authority in hiscomplaint.”On March 6, 2026, appellant filed a motion requesting thatthe district court vacate the March 5, 2026 dismissal order,reinstate the case, and allow appellant to “file an amendedcomplaint correcting minor procedural defects and clarifyingfactual allegations.” In a March 9, 2026 order, the districtcourt denied appellant's motion.An appeal may be taken “from an order which, in effect,determines the action and prevents a judgment from whichan appeal might be taken.” Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03(e).Generally, a district court order dismissing a matter withoutprejudice is not appealable. Sussman v. Sussman, 178 N.W.2d244, 244 (Minn. 1970). An order dismissing a matter withoutprejudice is appealable if it affects the substantial rightsof one of the parties. Fischer v. Perisian, 86 N.W.2d737, 740 (Minn. 1957). We have held that a district courtorder dismissing an action without prejudice amounted to adismissal with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction where, due totime constraints, the appellant had no opportunity to re-serveprocess. Stransky v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 761, 439 N.W.2d 408,409 (Minn. App. 1989), rev. denied (Minn. July 12, 1989).Appellant contends that the March 5, 2026 order dismissingappellant's action without prejudice affected appellant'ssubstantial rights. Appellant notes that the dismissal was“based on [an] alleged citation to nonexistent legal authority”and asserts that the district court “rendered the alleged defectuncurable” by refusing to accept an amended complaint fixingthe citation issue it identified.In the March 5, 2026 dismissal order, the district court didnot decide the merits of any of appellant's claims. Becausethe district court's dismissal of appellant's action withoutprejudice does not prevent appellant from serving and filinga new action raising the same claims, the district court'sdecision to deny appellant's request to file an amendedcomplaint did not transform the dismissal into a dismissalwith prejudice.
Marcus Rushing, Appellant, v. Jessica M Rushing,..., Not Reported in N.W.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2*2 Appellant argues that the dismissal of appellant's action,“combined with [the] denial of preservation-related motions,”resulted in appellant's inability to “enforce issued subpoenas”and “obtain or preserve electronic evidence.” Appellantasserts that “refiling the action would not restore Appellant'sability to litigate the claims” because of the “[i]mmediate riskof spoliation of time-sensitive materials.”Appellant does not explain what specific evidence, if any,has been lost because of the district court's decision todismiss appellant's action without prejudice. It is unclearhow dismissal of appellant's action about a month after itwas filed could have resulted in irreparable loss of evidence,particularly when appellant can bring a new action raisingthe same claims. We conclude that the March 5, 2026 orderdismissing appellant's action without prejudice did not affectappellant's substantial rights. The March 5, 2026 order istherefore not appealable. See Sussman, 178 N.W.2d at 244(dismissing appeal from order dismissing complaint withoutprejudice because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that theplaintiff's right to relief, if any, was prejudiced by the orderof dismissal).Appellant contends that the March 9, 2026 order denyingappellant's motion to vacate the March 5, 2026 dismissal orderis independently appealable. Appellant asserts that an “orderdenying motions that would revive or reinstate an actionmay be appealable where they effectively end the litigation.”Appellant argues that the order denying appellant's motionto vacate is a “final determination of Appellant's ability toproceed” and “[l]eaves no remaining avenue for relief in thedistrict court.”Although the district court's March 9, 2026 order denyingappellant's motion to vacate prevented appellant from filingan amended complaint in the underlying district court action,it did not prevent appellant from bringing a new action raisingthe same claims. Because appellant can bring a new actionraising the same claims, the March 9, 2026 order did notfinally determine appellant's claims. The March 9, 2026 orderdenying appellant's motion to vacate is not independentlyappealable.On March 18, 2026, appellant filed a motion to expeditethis appeal. Because this appeal is being dismissed, we denyappellant's motion to expedite as moot.IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:1. This appeal is dismissed.2. Appellant's motion to expedite is denied as moot.3. The clerk of the appellate courts shall provide copies of thisorder to the Honorable Sean C. Gibbs, the self-representedappellant, respondents, and the district court administrator.BY THE COURTAll CitationsNot Reported in N.W. Rptr., 2026 WL 905119Footnotes1Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata,or collateral estoppel.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access