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.”