Any party or attorney may make and serve on the opposing party and file with the administrator a notice to remove. The notice shall be served and filed within ten days after the party receives notice of which judge or judicial officer is to preside at the trial or hearing, but not later than the commencement of the trial or hearing.
No such notice may be filed by a party or party’s attorney against a judge or judicial officer who has presided at a motion or any other proceeding of which the party had notice, or who is assigned by the Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court. A judge or judicial officer who has presided at a motion or other proceeding or who is assigned by the Chief Justice of the Miimesota Siq)reme Court may not be removed except upon an affirmative showing that the judge or judicial officerjs disqualified under the Code of Judicial Conduct.
After a party has once disqualified a presiding judge or judicial officer as a matter of right, that party may disqualify the substitute judge or judicial officer, but only by making an affirmative showing that the judge or judicial officer is disqualified under the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Upon the filing of a notice to remove or if a litigant makes an affirmative showing ei that a substitute judge or judicial officer is disqualified under the Code of Judicial Conduct the chief judge of the judicial district shall assign any other judge of any court within the district, or a judicial officer in the case of a substitute judicial officer, to hear the cause.
Minn. R. Civ. P. 63.03
Advisory Committee Comments–2000 Amendments
Rule 63.03is amended to make clear the fact that a judge specially assigned by the Chief Justice to hear cases originally pending in more than one district cannot be removed by mere filing of a notice to remove. This amendment is a companion to the amendment of Rule 113.03 of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice in 2000, effective March 1, 2001, to provide a formal mechanism for requesting the Chief Justice to make such an assignment. This rule codifies the existing practice in special cases such as special assignment of a judge by the Chief Justice. The rule makes it clear that even a judge assigned by the Chief Justice may be removed for cause.
Advisory Committee Comment-2018 Amendments
Rule 63 is amended to apply the disqualiflcation standard of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct to disqualification under the civil rules. The standard in the existing rule-whether the judicial officer would be excused from service as a juror and tying that determination to an affirmative showing of prejudice-does not accurately state the correct standard. Rule 26.03, subd. 14(3) of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure uses the Code of Judicial Conduct standard, and the Minnesota Stq?reme Court has cpplied the Code of Judicial Conduct for deciding questions of disqualification of Judges on the Minnesota Court of Appeals. See Powell v. Anderson, 660 N.W.2d 107, 114-15 (Minn. 2003). The juror-based standard dates back to Minnesota’s Territorial days. See Minn. Rev. Stat. 1851, ch. 69, art. 2, ยง 5. The standard has not been modified in the civil rules
since, including iq>on the adoption of the Code of Judicial Conduct by the Minnesota Supreme Court in 1974.
This amended rule adopts a standard for disqualification or recusal of a judge that is clearer and readily accessible to judges and litigants. Although close questions of disqualification may properly be resohed in favor of disqualification, the Code of Judicial Conduct also recognizes that a judicial officer has an affirmative duty to hear matters properly assigned where disqualification is not required by the Code. See Rule 2.7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.