Thursday, February 23, 2023

A Guide for the Perplexed - Statute of Limitations - “Borrowing” statutes and rules

A Guide for the Perplexed

Statute of Limitations - “Borrowing” statutes and rules

In General


Every state in the U. S. sets time limits on various types of lawsuits. For example, personal injury claims from automobile accidents usually have to be filed in court within one or two years after the accident happened. Lawsuits for breach of a written contract might be limited to four, five, or more years. It is different from state to state. 


The laws that establish these time limitations are called “statutes of limitation.” As with any legislative enactment, statutes of limitations can be amended and changed at any time without warning. 


When the time for filing a lawsuit has expired, a defendant can ask the court to dismiss the action. It is important to know that a statute of limitations defense is not automatic. If the age of a claim is not affirmatively presented to the court within the time allowed, the defense might be forfeited.


Statutes of limitation have wider relevance, If a debt collection agency improperly attempts to collect a debt that is older than the statute of limitation allows, it is possibly a violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or state consumer protection laws. 


However, such “zombie debts” can still legally appear on your credit report even if they cannot be collected.


Statutes of limitation do not eliminate the debt or absolve one from liability when the time limit is expired. The simple act of crossing a state line might resurrect a claim in the second state that had expired in the first state. This can happen when two states have different limitations on actions.


A statute of limitations is typically considered to be a procedural law that restricts a court’s ability to docket a case based on its age. A state court normally uses its own state’s statute of limitations for any case that is filed. Choice of law decisions generally distinguish between procedural and substantive law issues. Since state time limits on actions are usually, but not always, procedural the forum state rules generally apply.


A “borrowing” statute or rule, on the other hand, requires a  court to apply another limitation on actions.  A state may thus borrow a different statute of limitations for a particular type of action. One main purpose of borrowing statutes is to prevent plaintiffs from engaging in forum shopping in order to find the longest available statute of limitations, but there is a wide diversity of state laws.


A borrowing statute may be applied where a plaintiff sues in a state different from the state where the act that is the basis of the lawsuit occurred. For example, if an individual is injured in a car accident with an out-of-state driver, that injured person may sue in the driver's home state. If the state in which the lawsuit is filed has a borrowing statute, that state may apply the other state's statute of limitations, as long as it is a shorter statute of limitations than that of the borrowing state.


In determining which state is the one in which the cause of action arose, states will apply various choice of law principles, which may be quite complicated. States that do not have borrowing statutes may apply their own statutes of limitation to most or all lawsuits filed in their state courts, although at times they may apply an out-of-state limitations period based upon a choice of law analysis.


In some states, the borrowing statute will only be applied if the plaintiff was not a resident of that state at the time the cause of action accrued; in others, it will only apply if the defendant was not a resident. Some states limit the use of borrowing statutes to specific types of cases, such as breach of contract actions.

States that do not have borrowing statutes.


  1. Arkansas

  2. Connecticut

  3. Georgia

  4. Indiana

  5. Louisiana

  6. Maine

  7. Maryland

  8. Nebraska

  9. New Hampshire

  10. New Jersey

  11. New Mexico

  12. North Dakota

  13. Ohio (tort actions only)

  14. Oregon

  15. South Carolina

  16. South Dakota

  17. Vermont


Thirty-three states have borrowing statutes in effect.


Alabama

Ala. Code § 6-2-17

Effect of foreign statutes upon actions on contracts.


When the statute of limitations of another state or foreign country has created a bar to an action upon a contract made or act done in such state or country while the party sought to be charged thereby was a resident of such state or country, the bar thus created is effectual in this state against any action commenced thereon in the same manner it would have been in the state or country where the act was done or contract made.


“In Alabama, the traditional choice of law rule of lex loci delicti governs tort causes of action and requires that the substantive law of the place where the tort occurred must be employed, while procedural law of the forum state is to be applied.”

Randolph v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 792 F. Supp. 1221 (N. D. Ala. 1992)


See also: Jones v. Triple Crown Services Co., 44 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (M. D. Ala. 1999)


Alaska

Alaska Statutes § 09.10.220

Action arising in other jurisdictions between nonresidents


When a cause of action has arisen in another state or in a territory or foreign country between nonresidents of this state, and by the laws of the state, territory, or country where the cause of action arose that action cannot be maintained because of a lapse of time, the action may not be maintained in this state.


“The trial court held that pursuant to AS 09.10.220, the six year statute of limitation on judgments applicable in Nevada bars recovery of arrearages which accrued prior to September 1971.” [f.n.1]

Malekos v. Chloe Ann Yin, 655 P. 2d 728 (Alaska 1982)



Arizona

AZ Rev. Stat. § 12.506

Action barred by foreign statute of limitation, bankruptcy or insolvency


A. No action shall be maintained against a person removing to this state from another state or foreign country to recover upon an action which was barred by the law of limitations of the state or country from which he migrated.


B. No action shall be brought to recover money from an immigrant who was released from its payment by the bankruptcy or insolvency laws of the state or country from which he migrated.



California

California Code of Civil Procedure § 361.  

Effect of Limitation Laws of Other States


When a cause of action has arisen in another State, or in a foreign country, and by the laws thereof an action thereon cannot there be maintained against a person by reason of the lapse of time, an action thereon shall not be maintained against him in this State, except in favor of one who has been a citizen of this State, and who has held the cause of action from the time it accrued.


Colorado

CO Rev. Stat. § 13-80-110

Causes barred in state of origin


If a cause of action arises in another state or territory or in a foreign country and, by the laws thereof, an action thereon cannot be maintained in that state, territory, or foreign country by reason of lapse of time, the cause of action shall not be maintained in this state.


Delaware

10 Delaware Code § 8121

Cause of action arising outside State


Where a cause of action arises outside of this State, an action cannot be brought in a court of this State to enforce such cause of action after the expiration of whichever is shorter, the time limited by the law of this State, or the time limited by the law of the state or country where the cause of action arose, for bringing an action upon such cause of action. Where the cause of action originally accrued in favor of a person who at the time of such accrual was a resident of this State, the time limited by the law of this State shall apply.


Florida

Florida Statutes § 95.10

Cause of action arising in another state.


When the cause of action arose in another state or territory of the United States, or in a foreign country, and its laws forbid the maintenance of the action because of lapse of time, no action shall be maintained in this state.


Hawaii

Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 657-9

Action barred in foreign jurisdiction


When a cause of action has arisen in any foreign jurisdiction, and by the laws thereof an action thereon cannot there be maintained against a person, by reason of the lapse of time, an action thereon shall not be maintained against the person in this State, except in favor of a domiciled resident thereof, who has held the cause of action from the time it accrued.


Idaho

Idaho Code § 5-239

Actions  barred in another state


When a cause of action has arisen in another state or territory, or in a foreign country, and by the laws thereof an action thereon can not there be maintained against a person by reason of the lapse of time, an action thereon shall not be maintained against him in this state, except in favor of one who has been a citizen of this state and who has held the cause of action from the time it accrued.


Illinois

735 IL Comp.d Stat. 13-210

Foreign limitation. 


When a cause of action has arisen in a state or territory out of this State, or in a foreign country, and, by the laws thereof, an action thereon cannot be maintained by reasons of the lapse of time, an action thereon shall not be maintained in this State.


Iowa

Iowa Code § 614.7

Bar in foreign jurisdiction.


When a cause of action has been fully barred by the laws of any country where the defendant has previously resided, such bar shall be the same defense here as though it had arisen under the provisions of this chapter; but this section shall not apply to causes of action arising within this state.


Kansas

Kansas Statutes § 60-516

Actions originating in another state


Where the cause of action has arisen in another state or country and by the laws of the state or country where the cause of action arose an action cannot be maintained thereon by reason of lapse of time, no action can be maintained thereon in this state except in favor of one who is a resident of this state and who has held the cause of action from the time it accrued.


Kentucky

Kentucky Rev. Stat. KRS § 413.320

Cause of action barred here if barred where it accrued


When a cause of action has arisen in another state or country, and by the laws of this state or country where the cause of action accrued the time for the commencement of an action thereon is limited to a shorter period of time than the period of limitation prescribed by the laws of this state for a like cause of action, then said action shall be barred in this state at the expiration of said shorter period.


Minnesota

Minnesota Statutes 541.31

Conflict of Laws - Limitation Periods


Subdivision 1. General. (a) Except as provided by subdivision 2 and section 541.33, if a claim is substantively based:


(1) upon the law of one other state, the limitation period of that state applies; or


(2) upon the law of more than one state, the limitation period of one of those states chosen by the law of conflict of laws of this state applies.


(b) The limitation period of this state applies to all other claims.


Subdivision 2. Action arising out of state; resident plaintiff. If a cause of action arises outside of this state and the action is barred under the applicable statute of limitations of the place where it arose, the action may be maintained in this state if the plaintiff is a resident of this state who has owned the cause of action since it accrued and the cause of action is not barred under the applicable statute of limitations of this state.


Massachusetts

Massachusetts General Laws Ch. 260, § 9

Nonresident defendant;  suspension of limitation      


If, when a cause of action hereinbefore mentioned accrues against a person, he resides out of the commonwealth, the action may be commenced within the time herein limited after he comes into the commonwealth; and if, after a cause of action has accrued, the person against whom it has accrued resides out of the commonwealth, the time of such residence shall be excluded in determining the time limited for the commencement of the action;  but no action shall be brought by any person upon a cause of action which was barred by the laws of any state or country while he resided therein.


Michigan

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5861 

Cause of action accruing without state; limitation on commencement of action.


An action based upon a cause of action accruing without this state shall not be commenced after the expiration of the statute of limitations of either this state or the place without this state where the cause of action accrued, except that where the cause of action accrued in favor of a resident of this state the statute of limitations of this state shall apply. This amendatory act shall be effective as to all actions hereinafter commenced and all actions heretofor commenced now pending in the trial or appellate courts.


Mississippi 

Mississippi Code. § 15-1-65

Action barred in another jurisdiction barred here


When a cause of action has accrued outside of this state, and by the laws of the place outside this state where such cause of action accrued, an action thereon cannot be maintained by reason of lapse of time, then no action thereon shall be maintained in this state; provided, however, that where such a cause of action has accrued in favor of a resident of this state, this state's law on the period of limitation shall apply.


Missouri

MO Rev Stat § 516.190


Limitations on actions originating in other states. — Whenever a cause of action has been fully barred by the laws of the state, territory or country in which it originated, said bar shall be a complete defense to any action thereon, brought in any of the courts of this state.


Montana

Montana Code Annotated § 27-2-104


Application of this state's statutes of limitations -- actions against nonresidents. When a cause of action that does not involve the title to or possession of real property within the state accrues against a person who is not then a resident of the state, an action is governed by part 5 of this chapter.


Montana Code Annotated §27-2-503. 


Conflict of laws -- limitation periods. 


1) Except as provided by 27-2-505, if a claim is substantively based:


(a) upon the law of one other state, the limitation period of that state applies; or

(b) upon the law of more than one state, the limitation period of one of those states chosen by this part applies.

(2) The limitation period of Montana applies to all other claims.


Nevada

NV Rev Stat § 11.020

Effect of laws of limitation of other states or countries. When a cause of action has arisen in another state, or in a foreign country, and by the laws thereof an action thereon cannot there be maintained against a person by reason of the lapse of time, an action thereon shall not be maintained against the person in this State, except in favor of a citizen thereof who has held the cause of action from the time it accrued.


New York

NY CPLR 202


Cause of Action Accruing Without the State. An action based upon a cause of action accruing without the state cannot be commenced after the expiration of the time limited by the laws of either the state or the place without the state where the cause of action accrued, except that where the cause of action accrued in favor of a resident of the state the time limited by the laws of the state shall apply.


North Carolina

North Carolina General Statute § 1-21


Defendant out of State; when action begun or judgment enforced.


If when the cause of action accrues or judgment is rendered or docketed against a person,

he is out of the State, action may be commenced, or judgment enforced within the times herein

limited after the return of the person into this State, and if, after such cause of action accrues or

judgment is rendered or docketed, such person departs from and resides out of this State, or

remains continuously absent therefrom for one year or more, the time of his absence shall not

be a part of the time limited for the commencement of the action or the enforcement of the

judgment. Provided, that where a cause of action arose outside of this State and is barred by the

laws of the jurisdiction in which it arose, no action may be maintained in the courts of this State

for the enforcement thereof, except where the cause of action originally accrued in favor of a resident of this State.


The provisions of this section shall not apply to the extent that a court of this State has or

continues to have jurisdiction over the person under the provisions of G.S. 1-75.4.


Ohio

ORC 2305.03(B) 


No tort action, as defined in section 2305.236 of the Revised Code, that is based upon a cause of action that accrued in any other state, territory, district, or foreign jurisdiction may be commenced and maintained in this state if the period of limitation that applies to that action under the laws of that other state, territory, district, or foreign jurisdiction has expired or the period of limitation that applies to that action under the laws of this state has expired.


Oklahoma

12 OK Stat § 105

Law governing


The period of limitation applicable to a claim accruing outside of this state shall be that prescribed either by the law of the place where the claim accrued or by the law of this state, whichever last bars the claim.


Pennsylvania

42 Pa. C.S. § 5521

Limitations on foreign claims


(a) Short title of section This section shall be known and may be cited as the "Uniform Statute of Limitations on Foreign Claims Act."

(b) General ruleThe period of limitation applicable to a claim accruing outside this Commonwealth shall be either that provided or prescribed by the law of the place where the claim accrued or by the law of this Commonwealth, whichever first bars the claim.

(c) Definition As used in this section "claim" means any right of action which may be asserted in a civil action or proceeding and includes, but is not limited to, a right of action created by statute.


Rhode Island

R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-18 (1969);

Effect of absence from state on limitations.


If any person against whom there is or shall be cause for any action, as enumerated in this chapter, in favor of a resident of the state, shall at the time the cause accrues be outside the limits of the state, or being within the state at the time the cause accrues shall go out of the state before the action is barred by the provisions of this chapter, and does not have or leave property or estate in the state that can be attached by process of law, then the person entitled to the action may commence the action, within the time before limited, after the person has returned into the state in such a manner that an action may, with reasonable diligence, be commenced against him or her by the person entitled to the action; provided, however, that no action shall be brought by any person upon a cause of action accruing outside this state which was barred by limitation or otherwise in the state, territory, or country in which the cause of action arose while he or she resided in the state.


Tennessee

Tenn. Code. § 28- 1-112 

Application of foreign statutes.


Where the statute of limitations of another state or government has created a bar to an action upon a cause accruing therein, while the party to be charged was a resident in such state or such government, the bar is equally effectual in this state.


Texas

Tx. Civ. Prac. and Rem. Code § 16.066

Action on Foreign Judgment


(a) An action on a foreign judgment is barred in this state if the action is barred

under the laws of the jurisdiction where rendered.


(b) An action against a person who has resided in this state for 10 years prior to the action may not be brought on a foreign judgment rendered more than 10 years before the commencement of the

action in this state.


(3) In this section "foreign judgment" means a judgment or decree rendered in another state or a foreign country.


Tx. Civ. Prac. and Rem. Code § 16.067

Claim Incurred Prior to Arrival in this State


(a) A person may not bring an action to recover a claim against a person who has moved to this state if the claim is barred by the law of limitations of the state or country from which the person came. 


(b) A person may not bring an action to recover money from a person who has moved to this state and who was released from its payment by the bankruptcy or insolvency laws of the state or country

from which the person came.


(c) A demand that is against a person who has moved to this state and was incurred prior to his arrival in this state is not barred by the law of limitations until the person has lived in this state for 12 months. This subsection does not affect the application of Subsections (a) and (b).


Utah

Ut. Code § 78B-2-103

Action barred in another state barred in Utah.


A cause of action which arises in another jurisdiction, and which is not actionable in the other jurisdiction by reason of the lapse of time, may not be pursued in this state, unless the cause of action is held by a citizen of this state who has held the cause of action from the time it accrued.


Virginia

Va. Code § 8.01-247

When action on contract governed by the law of another state or country barred in Virginia.


No action shall be maintained on any contract which is governed by the law of another state or country if the right of action thereon is barred either by the laws of such state or country or of this Commonwealth.


Washington

Wa. Rev. Code § 4.16.290

Foreign statutes of limitation, how applied.


When the cause of action has arisen in another state, territory or country between nonresidents of this state, and by the laws of the state, territory or country where the action arose, an action cannot be maintained thereon by reason of the lapse of time, no action shall be maintained thereon in this state.



West Virginia

W. Va. Code § 55-2-17


. . . . And upon a contract which was made and was to be performed in another state or country, by a person who then resided therein, no action shall be maintained after the right of action thereon is barred either by the laws of such state or country or by the laws of this state.


Wisconsin

Wis. Stat. § 893.07

Application of foreign statutes of limitation.


(1)  If an action is brought in this state on a foreign cause of action and the foreign period of limitation which applies has expired, no action may be maintained in this state.

(2) If an action is brought in this state on a foreign cause of action and the foreign period of limitation which applies to that action has not expired, but the applicable Wisconsin period of limitation has expired, no action may be maintained in this state.


Wyoming

WY Stat. § 1-3-117 

Effect of foreign law


If by the laws of the state or country where the cause of action arose the action is barred, it is also barred in this state.




Wednesday, February 1, 2023

Unclaimed funds - Sample Finder's Agreement

GOVERNMENT AUDIT & BENEFICIARY LOCATOR CLIENT AGREEMENT

______________ (the “Company’) is pleased to assist you with attempting to recover some of the assets lost in the foreclosure of __________________ (the “Claim”) that potentially belong to you, ____________, an estate, trust, corporation, LLC, or other legal entity that you are associated with (“You/Claimant’). Based on our analysis, this foreclosure may be eligible for up to $___________ when applied for through the right government program(s). This engagement letter (the “Agreement”) outlines the terms of our services and your responsibilities as we help you recover these funds.

1. Services offered. The Company agrees to provide the following services in connection with the Claim:

A. Identification of Claim. The Company will perform the necessary research to identify the source of and maximum amount of funds to apply for in the Claim.

B. Recovery and Expenses. Company shall pay all expenses, including paying all legal expenses, whether or not the claim is recovered. Company shall dedicate the labor required to apply for your Claim on your behalf in Court, or otherwise.

2. Your Responsibilities. In connection with applying for the Claim, You agree to the following:

A. Authorization. You authorize the Company to act as your exclusive agent to apply for the Claim.

B. Paperwork. You agree to sign and return all documents required for application of the Claim to the Company within 3 business days of receiving them.

C. Cooperation. You agree to cooperate with the local attorney assigned to your case (if your case requires the help of a licensed attorney) to fill out and return any prepared paperwork. Both parties agree to cooperate fully with all reasonable requests from the other in performance of this Agreement.

D. Non-Circumvention and Nondisclosure. You understand that during the process of working with the Company, You may learn how to apply for the Claim. You agree that You will not disclose this information to any person or entity, nor will You attempt to circumvent the Company by applying for the claim without the Company's involvement. Should You circumvent the Company, you are still responsible for paying all of the Company's fees and expenses, as outlined below.

Costs and Fees.

A. Costs. The Company will pay for ALL costs associated with the application and recovery of the Claim.

B. Success Fee. Upon successful recovery of the Claim, You will receive 65% of the funds from the Claim. You agree that the Company shail retain 35% of the Claim as a success and administration fee. The party receiving the Claim check is obligated to send the other party their portion of the Claim within 10 business days of receiving the Claim check and the funds clearing their bank. If either party fails to pay the other as agreed, the party responsible for paying shall be liable for treble damages.

C. Local Attorney. If the Company is required to engage a local attorney, the attorney may be responsible for applying for your Claim and distributing your portion to You.

D. Governing Law, Venue, and Relief. This Agreement is governed under the laws of Missouri, where the Company is headquartered. In the event of a dispute, the venue shall be the City of St. Louis, MO. The prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and other relief awarded by the Court.

E. Binding. This Agreement is binding upon all heirs, successors in interest, and assigns.

F. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

If the terms of this client engagement letter are acceptable to You, please acknowledge by signing below (physically or electronically) and returning to our office, either by mail or electronically.


--------------------

Tom Fox, J. D.
Southern Specialty Law Publishing Company
Louisville, Kentucky

----------- oOo ---------


This is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer.

Saturday, December 3, 2022

Kari Lake, et al., v. Katie Hobbs - FRCP 11 Sanctions

FRCP 11 Sanctions


Kari Lake, et al., v. Katie Hobbs, et al., 

No. CV-22-00677-PHX-JJT U. S. District Court for Arizona


All politics aside, the recent controversy in the 2022 Arizona election has generated an unusual opportunity to witness a U. S. District Court Judge put Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 11 sanctions into practice.


Link to Court Document


When an attorney or litigant files a pleading with a federal court, Rule 11 provides that certain representations are implicit in the submission. Specifically, Rule 11(b) provides,


“ . . . . 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; [and]

(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. . . . “


If Rule 11 is violated, the Court may impose sanctions upon the litigant or the attorney.


In Lake v. Hobbs, Plaintiffs challenged the procedures for administering elections in

Arizona and sought an injunction compelling Defendants—election officials at the state

and county levels—to follow alternative procedures for collecting, storing, counting, and

tabulating votes in the 2022 midterm election. 


“Broadly, Plaintiffs alleged that the electronic voting machines certified for use in Arizona, including optical scanners and ballot marking devices . . .  are “potentially unsecure, lack adequate audit capacity, fail to meet minimum statutory requirements, and deprive voters of the right to have their votes counted and reported in an accurate, auditable, legal, and transparent process.”


 . . .  Plaintiffs alleged that the machines are “rife” with cybersecurity vulnerabilities and allow for unauthorized persons to manipulate the reported vote counts in an election and potentially change the winner. 


. . . Plaintiffs claimed that Arizona’s audit regime is insufficient to negate these vulnerabilities and that the only way to overcome the security issues they identify is “for the Court to Order, an election conducted by paper ballot, as an alternative to the current framework.” . . .


 Plaintiffs requested that the Court implement certain procedures, including the use of paper ballots and a live-streamed hand-count of all ballots cast. 


. . . Plaintiffs maintained that the Cyber Ninjas’ hand count of two contests in the 2020 general election in Maricopa County offers “a proof-of-concept and a superior alternative to relying on corruptible electronic voting systems.” . . . . “



In July, 2022, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the Defendants requested the Court impose sanctions under Rule 11.  Defendants argued that Plaintiffs and their counsel made “numerous false allegations about Arizona elections in their [complaint] . . . , that Plaintiffs’ claims are frivolous, and that they pursued this case for the improper purpose of undermining confidence in elections and furthering their political campaigns.”


The court wrote:


Applying Rule 11 “requires sensitivity to two competing considerations . . . On the one hand, . . . on occasion attorneys engage in litigation tactics so vexatious as to be unjustifiable even within the broad bounds of our adversarial system, and . . . neither the other parties nor the courts should have to abide such behavior or waste time and money coping with it.” . . . Thus, “the central purpose of Rule 11 is to deter baseless filings.” . . . On the other hand, . . . our system of litigation is an adversary one, and . . . presenting the facts and law as favorably as fairly possible in favor of one’s client is the nub of the lawyer’s task.” . . . Sanctions therefore should be imposed “only in the most egregious situations, lest lawyers be deterred from vigorous representation of their clients. . . .”



“. . . . Sanctions . . .  must be supported by a finding of subjective bad faith. . .Bad faith is present when an attorney knowingly or recklessly raises a frivolous argument or argues a meritorious claim for the purpose of harassing an opponent.


Plaintiffs made false allegations and representations that Arizona voters do not vote by hand on paper ballots. However, every Arizona voter casts a ballot by hand, on

paper. This is the law in Arizona.


In Arizona, there must be a paper ballot that can be used in the event of a vote audit. It cannot be disputed that Arizona already requires and uses paper ballots. Allegations to the contrary are simply false. A system that uses paper ballots for recording votes and electronic machines for tabulating them remains a “paper-based voting system.”


Plaintiffs falsely alleged that Arizona voters cast their ballots by electronic voting machines.


In conclusion, the Court found that sanctions were warranted under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. 


Plaintiffs made false, misleading, and unsupported factual assertions and that their claims for relief did not have an adequate factual or legal basis grounded in a reasonable pre-filing inquiry.


Plaintiffs’ counsel acted at least recklessly in unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying the proceedings by seeking a preliminary injunction based on Plaintiffs’ frivolous claims, in violation of Section 1927.


Improper Purpose


Although the Court did not find that the Plaintiffs acted appropriately in this litigation, neither did it find that they acted with an improper purpose.


The Court shared the concerns expressed by other federal courts about the misuse of the judicial system to baselessly cast doubt on the electoral process in a manner that is conspicuously consistent with the plaintiffs’ political ends.


The court granted the Defendants’ motion for sanctions under Rule 11 and directed the defendants to specify their attorney’s fees in defending the case. 



--------------------

Tom Fox, J. D.
Louisville, Kentucky