04-14-1999 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

grounded in fact and are warranted by existing law or a good faith extension of existing law. The attorney's signature also attests to the fact that the pleadings, motions, or papers are not interposed for an improper purpose, such as to harass or cause unnecessary delay or increase the costs of litigation. MRCP Rule 11. If Rule 11 is violated, the Court is to impose appropriate sanctions on the attorney who violated it or the represented party, or both. Although initially Plaintiffs may have believed they had a legitimate claim and evidence to support it, as the trial date approached, Plaintiffs and their attorney should have become aware of the deficiencies in their claim. In fact, this Court specifically questioned Plaintiffs' attorney on the deficiencies alleged by Defendant in Plaintiffs' case in the weeks leading up to trial. The Court was assured the deficiencies would be rectified by the evidence presented at trial and allowed the Plaintiffs' claim to go forward. Yet, Plaintiffs presented no evidence at trial to carry their burden on the claim. Because Plaintiffs and their attomey should have known as the trial date approached that there was insufficient evidentiary support for the claims being asserted, yet, they continued to assert their claims, the Court finds the Plaintiffs and their attorney violated the provisions of Minn. Stat. Sec. 549.211, Subd. 2(3). The Court imposes the sanction of S500.00 against Plaintiffs and their attorney, Deno W. Berndt. Plaintiffs and Deno Berndt are jointly and severally liable for the sanction imposed. Page 27