Why Filing in Federal Court Did Not Save a Minnesota Injury Claim From the Deadline

The Facts

What happened

Richard Blackwell alleged that on July 26, 2018, he shopped at a Cub Foods in St. Paul, and that after he paid at self-checkout and headed for the exit, a store employee grabbed his arm, accused him of stealing, refused to let him leave, and struck him in the chest and stomach. These are allegations; the courts never reached whether they were true.

Blackwell first pursued the matter in federal court, filing a lawsuit that raised a federal civil-rights claim along with Minnesota state-law claims against Cub Foods and Supervalu, Inc. In September 2024, the federal court dismissed his federal claim and declined to hear the state-law claims, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed. Notably, Blackwell acknowledged that he never actually served the defendants in the federal case; he said he had delivered the summons to a U.S. Marshal.

He then brought the state-law claims in Minnesota — first in conciliation court in February 2025, then in district court through a “trial de novo” removal. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were filed too late. The district court agreed and dismissed the case as time-barred.

The Decision

What the court held

The Court of Appeals, in an opinion authored by Judge Bond, affirmed the dismissal, upholding the Hennepin County District Court. See Blackwell v. Cub Foods, No. A26-0093 (Minn. Ct. App. July 13, 2026). This opinion is nonprecedential. It is not binding authority, although it may be cited for persuasive value as permitted by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

The claims accrued with the July 26, 2018 incident. Blackwell's negligence claim carried a two-year deadline (Minn. Stat. § 541.07(1)), and his “crimes of bias” claim carried a six-year deadline (Minn. Stat. § 611A.79). By the time he commenced the Minnesota action in February 2025 — six years, six months, and eighteen days after the incident — both deadlines had passed, unless something had paused the clock.

Blackwell argued that a federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), paused (tolled) the state deadlines while his federal case was pending. That statute can toll state deadlines for state-law claims brought alongside federal claims. But the court explained the decisive catch: whether the federal action counts as properly commenced for statute-of-limitations purposes is governed by Minnesota's commencement rule, Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.01. Under that rule, an action commences only when the defendant is served, waives service, or the summons is delivered to a sheriff who then serves it within 60 days.

Because Blackwell conceded he never served the defendants in the federal case — and did not claim they waived service or that a sheriff served them within 60 days — he never “commenced” the federal action against them under Minnesota's rule. As a result, § 1367(d) never began tolling anything, and the state deadlines ran out. The court also explained that a U.S. Supreme Court case Blackwell relied on, Artis v. District of Columbia, addressed a different question (what “tolled” means once tolling applies) and did not help him. Finally, the court noted that alleged errors in the earlier conciliation-court proceeding were outside its review, because removal to district court starts a fresh case tried “as if it had not been tried before.”

The court never reached whether the store or its employee did anything wrong; the dismissal rested entirely on timing. The deadlines at issue were the statutes of limitations governing these specific claims — this post does not calculate the deadline applicable to any reader's claim.

Practical Takeaways

What this means for Minnesota injury claims

Practical points that arise directly from this opinion:

• Filing a lawsuit is not the same as commencing one in Minnesota. Under Minnesota's rule, service on the defendant (or delivery to a sheriff who serves within 60 days) is what starts the clock-stopping process. Simply filing paperwork — even in federal court — may not be enough.
• A federal filing does not automatically protect a related state claim. The tolling benefit of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) can depend on whether the action was properly commenced under state service rules.
• Deadlines vary by claim. Different injury-related claims can carry different limitations periods (here, two years and six years), and each runs from when the claim accrues.
• Deadlines and service should be addressed early. Confirming how and when a claim must be commenced — and ensuring defendants are properly served — is often critical to preserving the right to be heard on the merits.

Related reading from Andrade Law:

• when an assault at a business becomes a civil claim for damages
• our plain-language guide to Minnesota's injury-claim filing deadlines
• our case note on Evans v. Sunrise East Multifamily, where a one-year filing rule kept a dismissed injury case closed

Case Information

Case information