This opinion will be unpublished and
Stanley Maroushek, Appellant, vs. John Grebin, et al., Respondents.
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
John Grebin, et al.,
Filed July 6, 1999
Toussaint, Chief Judge
Fillmore County District Court
File No. C9-98-366
Thomas M. Manion, Jr., Herrick & Manion Law Office, 600 Kenilworth South, Lanesboro, MN 55947 (for appellant)
Richard A. Nethercut, 32 Main Avenue North, Harmony, MN 55939 (for respondents)
Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge, Toussaint, Chief Judge, and Willis, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
The district court dismissed appellant's case because he failed to follow its standing order to file formal pleadings within 15 days of receipt of the order. Because Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 522 gives the district court authority to promulgate its standing order, we affirm.
D E C I S I O N
Where the material facts are not in dispute, a reviewing court need not defer to the district court's application of the law. Hubred v. Control Data Corp., 442 N.W.2d 308, 310 (Minn. 1989).
Appellant's case was dismissed for failure to comply with the district court's Standing Administrative Order:
[I]t is hereby ORDERED that all parties removing or appealing a conciliation court case to District Court shall prepare, serve and file formal pleadings within 15 days of the receipt of this Order in order to proceed to District Court.
Appellant contends that the standing order is not authorized by district court rules. But Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 522 provides that when a case is removed from conciliation court, "[o]n the motion of any party or on its own initiative, the court may order either or both parties to prepare, serve and file formal pleadings." The district court applied this rule in promulgating the standing order.
Appellant argues that Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 522 implies that district courts will perform a case-by-case analysis before ordering that pleadings be served and filed when conciliation court cases are removed, but we see no language in the rule supporting this implication.
Appellant also argues that the standing order is ineffective because the supreme court has not ordered that it become effective. He relies on Minn. R. Civ P. 83, providing that when a court recommends rules governing its practice, those rules "become effective as ordered by the Supreme Court." But Minn. R. Civ. P. 83 does not restrict district courts to enforcing only what is ordered by the supreme court, and Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 522 does not refer to the supreme court when it authorizes courts to order formal pleadings in removals from conciliation court. We see no support for appellant's view that, absent a supreme court order, the district court may not enforce a standing order.
Nor do we see merit in appellant's claim that the standing order violated due process because it did not include the names of the parties or the file number. When appellant received the standing order, it was attached to a Notice of Court Trial bearing the parties' names and the file number. There was no violation of due process.
Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 522 clearly authorizes district courts to require filing of formal pleadings on cases removed from conciliation court. Appellant's case was properly dismissed for failure to comply.
 The standing order requires cases removed from conciliation court to meet the same standards as all other civil cases. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 5.01, 5.04.