| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
I wonder if this calls for Rule 11 sanctions?I wonder if this calls for Rule 11 sanctions?Posted Jun 22, 2005 19:10 UTC (Wed) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)Parent article: The next chapter in the Merkey saga
To most of us, this is just high comedy, but (assuming the filing is real) for Bruce and the other named parties, it's a serious imposition that is going to take real money and time out of their lives to dispose of. This alleged civil lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (one of the 94 trial courts, as opposed to the 12 regional circuit or appellate courts + one for the Federal circuit): That means that its proceedings follow the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure. The Federal Rules provide a standard remedy in case of frivolous litigation. It's contained in Rule 11: An action in Federal court must not be "presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation", the factual representations must "have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery", the legal claims must be "warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law", and any denial of respondent's factual allegations must be "warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief. Anyone who is defending a Federal suit and feels that major elements of the complaint are improper per Rule 11 can file a motion requesting that those elements be corrected or withdrawn. If that doesn't happen within 21 days, then one can file for sanctions citing Rule 11. The Federal courts don't have specific sanctions they must apply in such cases, but tend to come down like a ton of bricks on the offending party in sundry ways (not just ordering the losing party to pay all legal expenses, but also requiring direct punitive payments to the court, direct punitive payments to the other party, and sometimes non-monetary sanctions -- (as the Federal Rules require) sufficient to deter any repetition by that party and others. Rule 11 sanctions tend to be quite serious. If I found myself served with a Federal action that seemed frivolous, I'd certainly ask my attorney to proceed towards Rule 11 sanctions, immediately. (I am not an attorney; I may not and do not give legal advice to people about their own situations, and discuss law only in general terms. People having specific legal issues should consult their own lawyers. My acquaintance with the Federal Rules is mostly courtesy of teenage years spent in and around Federal court in San Francisco, observing legal wrangling about a civil-negligence lawsuit.) Rick Moen
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||