Kraemer v. Grant County case brief summary
892 F.2d 686 (7th Cir. 1990)
CASE FACTS
Appellant attorney was sanctioned under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 for having filed a lawsuit on behalf of his client without first having made reasonable investigation into the facts of the case and was ordered to pay $ 3,000 as part of appellees' attorney fees. Appellant had his client write a detailed summary of her complaints, hired a private investigator to investigate her claims against her late fiancĂ©'s parents and the local sheriff for alleged civil rights violations, and when appellees refused to cooperate with the investigator, plaintiff filed suit and obtained further discovery. Appellees, along with a motion for summary judgment, requested the imposition of sanctions against appellants under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1988 and rule 11 and the court entered judgment for appellees for $ 3,000 under rule 11.
DISCUSSION
The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding that it was error to conclude that appellant attorney's conduct in filing the complaint was sanctionable. The court found that appellants' complaint withstood motion to dismiss and that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were not intended to undermine zealous advocacy, nor to chill an attorney's enthusiasm in pursuing civil rights cases for unpopular clients.
Recommended Supplements for Civil Procedure
892 F.2d 686 (7th Cir. 1990)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant attorney challenged an order
of the United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin, requiring him to pay $ 3000 to appellees, as a sanction
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 for having filed a lawsuit on
behalf of his client without first having made reasonable
investigation into the facts of the case.CASE FACTS
Appellant attorney was sanctioned under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 for having filed a lawsuit on behalf of his client without first having made reasonable investigation into the facts of the case and was ordered to pay $ 3,000 as part of appellees' attorney fees. Appellant had his client write a detailed summary of her complaints, hired a private investigator to investigate her claims against her late fiancĂ©'s parents and the local sheriff for alleged civil rights violations, and when appellees refused to cooperate with the investigator, plaintiff filed suit and obtained further discovery. Appellees, along with a motion for summary judgment, requested the imposition of sanctions against appellants under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1988 and rule 11 and the court entered judgment for appellees for $ 3,000 under rule 11.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court reversed the trial court's judgment holding that appellants' complaint had withstood a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion and rule 11 was not intended to undermine zealous advocacy, nor to chill an attorney's enthusiasm or creativity in pursuing factual or legal theories, especially in civil rights cases for unpopular clients.
The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding that it was error to conclude that appellant attorney's conduct in filing the complaint was sanctionable. The court found that appellants' complaint withstood motion to dismiss and that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were not intended to undermine zealous advocacy, nor to chill an attorney's enthusiasm in pursuing civil rights cases for unpopular clients.
Recommended Supplements for Civil Procedure
No comments:
Post a Comment