Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 9.07

As amended through July 3, 2024
Rule 9.07 - Effect on Other Provisions

Sanctions available under this rule are in addition to sanctions expressly authorized by any other statute or rule, or in the inherent power of the court.

Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 9.07

Added effective 9/1/1999.

Advisory Committee Comment - 1999 Amendment

This rule is intended to curb frivolous litigation that is seriously burdensome on the courts, parties, and litigants. This rule is intended to apply only in the most egregious circumstances of abuse of the litigation process, and the remedies allowed by the rule can be viewed as drastic. Because of the very serious nature of the sanctions under this rule, courts should be certain that all reasonable efforts have been taken to ensure that affected parties are given notice and an opportunity to be heard. Rule 9.01 also requires that the court enter findings of fact to support any relief ordered under the rule, and this requirement should be given careful attention in the rare case where relief under this rule is necessary.

It is appropriate for the court to tailor the sanction imposed under this rule to the conduct and to limit the sanction to what is necessary to curb the inappropriate conduct of the frivolous litigant. See Cello-Whitney v. Hoover, 769 F. Supp. 1155 (W.D. Wash. 1991).

This rule includes a specific provision relating to the possible appeal of an order for sanctions. The rule provides that an appeal may be taken within 60 days, the same period allowed for appeals from orders and judgment, but specifies that the 60-day period begins to run from entry of the date of filing of the order. This timing mechanism is preferable because the requirement of service of notice of entry may not be workable where only one party may be interested in the appeal or where the order is entered on the court's own initiative. The date of filing can be readily determined, and typically appears on the face of the order or is a matter of record, obviating confusion over the time to appeal.

Advisory Committee Comment-2015 Amendments

The amendment to Rule 9 is not substantive in nature or intended effect. The replacement of "paper" with "document" is made throughout these rules to advance precision in choice of language. Most documents will not be filed as "paper" documents, so paper is retired as a descriptor of them.

.