Minnesota Supreme Court determines a Rule 68 offer which provides double-costs to a plaintiff is substantive not procedural when determining preemption between federal and state Rules.

Boyd v. BNSF Railway Company Minnesota Supreme Court January 27, 2016 A new Minnesota Supreme Court decision addresses the interplay between Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 68 and federal law in the FELA context.  Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 68 governs offers of settlement and judgment in Minnesota cases and provides a cost-shifting mechanism designed to encourage settlement of claims by imposing fees and costs upon a party who failed to accept a settlement offer or offer of judgment that is more favorable than the trial results.  Minnesota Rule 68 also has a federal counterpart but it is significantly different  … Read more