Tag: attorney certification

The neglected court Rule 11(b)

An informative Arizona case, Potter v. Arizona House [Potter],  brought forth claims that Rules of Civil Procedure 11(b) [FRCP] were violated by plaintiff and sanctions were awarded under 11(c).  Potter in his lawsuit discovery request sought Arizona House of Representatives public records, and also sought communications records between a private,  third party person and the Representative being charged. She refused claiming as a private person she was not subject to public records disclosure laws.

She filed a Rule 11(b) complaint citing (b)(1) and (b)(2) that the request was improper and to harass and delay, and that the claims were unwarranted —  “frivolous”. The court had evidence and ruled that Potter was vexatious litigant – in short just a troublemaker – that didn’t help Potter and the court did not dismiss her charges;  sanctions were justified.

This Commentary brings an important message to those homeowners who have complained on social media about their HOA many times, on many issues, over a period of time. You have probably been seen, not charged, as a troublemaker tying up the court’s time. Not helpful. 

To make my point, allow me to quote the phrase from the old Dragnet TV police series of the 1950s:  “Just the facts, Mame. Just the facts.”

See in general,  HOA members fail to invoke their strongest weapon — Rule 11, representations to the court (2018).

 References

Potter.   Potter v. Arizona House, CA-CV 23-0213, Ariz. App. 1 (2-1-2024).

FRCP-11. Note this FRCP Representations section can also be found in state rules of civil procedure, R 11 (b). Both contain R 11(c) that provides sanctions for violations.

Federal Rules Civil Practice (FRCP-11)

“(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.”

Attorney abuse sanctioned: why not HOA attorneys?

This US district court opinion[1] sanctioned lawyers who

“abused the well-established rules applicable to the litigation process by proffering claims not backed by law; proffering claims not backed by evidence (but instead, speculation, conjecture, and unwarranted suspicion); proffering factual allegations and claims without engaging in the required prefiling inquiry.”

This opinion imposed   

“monetary sanctions on nine Trump attorneys was that it was so long in coming  . . . made outlandish claims of election fraud in Michigan and other key battleground states, all of which were roundly rejected by every court that considered them.”

 What has this case to do with HOA attorney conduct? Plenty!  Just read the judge’s opinion (pages 1 – 5) and see why. The highly relevant opinion that can be applied to the conduct of many HOA attorneys:

“Specifically, attorneys have an obligation to the judiciary, their profession, and the public (i) to conduct some degree of due diligence before presenting allegations as truth; (ii) to advance only tenable claims; and (iii) to proceed with a lawsuit in good faith and based on a proper purpose. Attorneys also have an obligation to dismiss a lawsuit when it becomes clear that the requested relief is unavailable. . . This matter comes before the Court upon allegations that Plaintiffs’ counsel did none of these things.”

Be sure to read the footnotes that further explain the justifications!

Furthermore, in response to intervenor, the City of Detroit’s  charges of violations of Rule 11, civil court procedures, that requires the attorney to certify that the lawsuit was not for “an improper purpose”, was not “well-grounded in law, because the factual allegations could not support Plaintiffs’ claims.”   You may recall my arguments on violations of Rule 11[2] as well as Rules of Professional Conduct, “candor to the tribunal (telling the truth)[3].

This country needs  more cities and towns, like Detroit,  to stand up to attorney abuse of their obligations to the judicial system. We need state bar associations to pursue claims of abuse! We need to stop the attorney claims of “professional courtesy” who fail to raise these issues on behalf of their homeowner clients!

Notes

[1] Timothy King et al. v. Gretchen Whitmer et al.,  No. 2:20-cv-13134  Aug. 25, 2021).

[2] See HOA members fail to invoke their strongest weapon — Rule 11, representations to the court.  

[3] See in general, Is CAI’s ‘lack of candor to the tribunal’ intentional? and Misrepresentation: CAI comes with unclean hands.