that the summons was fatally defective because it failed to comply with the requirements of a summons, which would enable the defendant to answer and defend. Id. The court reasoned that although the requirements of the statute should be liberally construed to avoid dismissing an action due to “technical and formal” defects, the summons must be sufficient to inform the defendant of the essential matters the statute requires so that the defendant can answer and defend the claim. Id. Here, the summons contained all the requirements set forth in rule 4.01. Although the summons did not include the ADR information, this omitted information was not essential for appellants to answer and defend the claim and was, therefore, in the nature of a technical defect. Cf. Haas, 418 N.W.2d at 513 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we conclude that the district
holding that if the states criminal complaint against defendant had a jurisdictional defect the prosecution had the right to attempt to correct the defect and a motion to dismiss is one method of doing this holding that failure to include all state court pleadings and process with the notice of removal is procedurally incorrect but is not a jurisdictional defect holding that the failure to include statutorily required signed acknowledgment of potential liability for costs and disbursements in a complaint was not jurisdictional defect requiring district court to dismiss case holding that the district court which erred in its conclusion that there was jurisdictional defect abused its discretion in denying a plaintiffsmotion for leave to amend his complaint because the proposed amendment would not cure the jurisdictional defect holding that the failure to join all the defendants in a removal petition is not a jurisdictional defect