Insurance Co. of North America v. J.S. Vig Construction Co.
Insurance Co. of North America v. J.S. Vig Construction Co.
Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Plaintiff Insurance Company of North America [“INA”] filed.its complaint June 21, 1991, seeking indemnification from defendants on certain bonds executed by defendants J.S. Vig Construction Company [“J.S. Vig”], Joseph S. Vig and Madeline Vig. Defendants filed their answer to the complaint July 29, 1991, admitting, inter alia, that these bonds were indeed executed by defendants in plaintiff’s favor.
Plaintiff now brings the instant motion for Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 sanctions against defendants and their counsel for their “actions ... in defending the litigation and opposing Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment____”
This court agrees with defendants. Federal R.Civ.P. 11 clearly states
Every pleading, motion, and other paper of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s individual name, whose address shall be stated____ The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by the signer that the signer has read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
First, Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 applies to writings, not oral requests given for ad
If plaintiff had sought concurrence in its motion for summary judgment, had been denied concurrence and this denial was stated in plaintiff’s motion, then this court would not hesitate to tax costs against defendants pursuant to Local Rule 17(a)(1).
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff Insurance Company of North America’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
. Defendants’ Answer at paras. 6 & 7.
. Plaintiffs Mot. Summ. J. at para. 3.
. Local Rule 17(a)(1) (E.D.Mich. 1991) requires that
[t]he motion shall affirmatively state that the concurrence of counsel in the relief sought has been requested on a specific date, and the concurrence has been denied or has not been acquiesced in and hence it is necessary to bring the motion____ The Court may tax costs for unreasonable withholding of consent.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. J.S. VIG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Joseph S. Vig and Madeline Vig jointly and severally
- Status
- Published