(D. Minn.), reprinted in Minn. Rules of Ct. 885-86 (West. 1990). Federal court practice

treats motions for interlocutory injunctive relief as dispositive because these matters are heard with other dispositive motions before judges rather than magistrates, but there is no reason to treat these motions as dispositive in state-court practice. Indeed, most such motions in state court are heard on expedited schedules set at the time of initial appearance. The language of rule 115.06 permits the court, but does not require it, to strike a motion where the rule is not followed. The permissive language is included to make it clear the court retains the discretion to hear matters even if the rules have been ignored, but should not be viewed as suggesting that the court needs to provide a hearing on whether such a motion will be stricken. Courts may administratively provide that hearings on motions not served and filed in accordance with the rule will be automatically or routinely canceled. The Task Force considered the adoption of the Seventh District's rule that called for the trial judge to "make every effort" to rule on nondispositive motions on the day of hearing and dispositive motions within 30 days of hearing. Seventh Dist. R. 15(8). That provision was adopted as part of the revision of motion practice in that district whereby earlier briefing was required with the expected result of earlier decision. Although the purpose of that rule is laudable, the Task Force decided it is not good practice to adopt rules that are purely hortatory in nature, and do not impose any specific requirements or standards. Nonetheless, the Task Force hopes that those benefits of early briefing will flow from the proposed changes on a statewide basis. The Task Force also noted that a statute governs the outer limits of the time for decision. See Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 546.27, subdivision 1 (establishing 90-day period for decision).