Minn. Stat. § 549.211

A motion for fees under § 549.211 must satisfy the procedural requirements of subdivision 4(a); failure to do so warrants denial.

Whalen Ex Rel. Whalen v. Whalen · filed 1999-06-08(4)(a)

Mother moved this court for attorney fees from Murphy-Robinson based on Minn.Stat. § 549.211. Mother failed to satisfy the procedural requirements of section 549.211, subdivision 4(a); therefore the motion is denied.

Section 549.211 permits attorney fees for bad-faith, frivolous, or fraudulent litigation positions, but requires a proper motion under subdivision 4.

Lucio v. School Board of Independent School District No. 625 · filed 1998-02-17subd. 3 and subd. 4

A court may award attorney fees to a party if the party against whom attorney fees are charged asserted an unfounded position solely to delay or harass; asserted a frivolous claim or defense that is costly to the other party; or committed fraud on the court. Minn.Stat. § 549.211, subd. 3 (Supp.1997). Lucio has not properly moved for attorney fees under Minn.Stat. § 549.211, subd. 4 (Supp.1997), and we, therefore, do not award him attorney fees.

Section 549.211 authorizes an appellate court to award attorney fees when an appeal is frivolous, subject to the court’s broad discretion.

Leonard v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. · filed 2000-02-08

This court may also award attorneys’ fees incurred on appeal if an appeal is frivolous. Minn.Stat. § 549.211 (1998). The decision of whether to award attorneys’ fees for frivolous claims rests within this court’s broad discretion. ... Although we rule against Leonard, we cannot characterize her claims as frivolous or unwarranted by existing law. ... We therefore reverse the district court’s attorneys’ fee award. For the same reasons, we decline to award fees incurred on appeal.

Section 549.211 permits monetary sanctions for conduct causing unnecessary litigation delay, but requires notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, limits sanctions to what deters repetition, and requires the court to describe the violation and explain the sanction.

Minnesota Humane Society v. Minnesota Federated Humane Societies · filed 2000-06-202(1), 3, 5(a), and 5(c)

A trial court may award monetary sanctions against a party who engages in action to cause unnecessary delay in litigation. Minn.Stat. § 549.211, subd. 2(1) (1998). ... The trial court has authority to award monetary sanctions only if, “after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision 2 has been violated.” Minn. Stat § 549.211, subd. 3 (1998); ... “A sanction imposed for violation of this section must be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of the conduct * * *.” Minn.Stat. § 549.211, subd. 5(a) (1998). Furthermore, “the court shall describe the conduct determined to constitute a violation of this section and explain the basis for the sanction imposed.” Minn. Stat. § 549.211, subd. 5(c) (1998). ... Accordingly, the court did not give MHS notice of the possibility of that sanction and did not give MHS an opportunity to be heard. Further, the court did not distinguish between fees and costs attributable to good-faith settlement negotiations and conduct constituting bad faith or delay tactics. Thus, the court abused its discretion in imposing attorney fees and costs without notice and an opportunity for hearing and in broadly awarding all fees and costs incurred without differentiating appropriate from inappropriate conduct.

Section 549.211 requires litigants to certify that court filings are proper and supported, and permits sanctions after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond when that certification is violated.

Liu v. Waymouth Farms, Inc. · filed 2016-01-19(2), (3)

By presenting a document to a court, a self-represented litigant certifies that the document is not presented for an improper purpose and that the contentions in the document are warranted and have, or are likely to have, evidentiary support. Minn. Stat. § 549.211, subd. 2; Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.02. “If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that [this principle] has been violated, the court may . . . impose an appropriate sanction . . . .” Minn. Stat. § 549.211, subd. 3; Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.03. The district court complied with the statutory requirements. It described the sanctionable conduct and explained the basis for the sanction imposed.

Section 549.211 requires attorneys to certify that pleadings are not presented for an improper purpose, are supported by existing law or a nonfrivolous legal argument, and have evidentiary support; it permits sanctions against an attorney or party who violates those requirements and requires notice and an opportunity to respond before sanctions are imposed.

Collins v. Waconia Dodge, Inc. · filed 2011-01-11subds. 2, 3, 4

An attorney presenting pleadings or motion papers to the court certifies that the claims are not being presented for an improper purpose, such as harassment; that they are supported by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument to change the law; and that factual allegations or their denials have evidentiary support. Minn.Stat. § 549.211, subd. 2; Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.02. A district court may impose sanctions against an attorney or a party who violates these requirements. Minn.Stat. § 549.211, subd. 3; Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.03.

Section 549.211, subdivision 3 requires notice of potential sanctions and an opportunity to respond before sanctions are imposed.

Penny Kandt v. Minnesota Department of Commerce · filed 2017-01-30(3)

A party is entitled to notice of potential sanctions and the opportunity to respond. Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.03; Minn. Stat. § 549.211, subd. 3 (2016). ... Because the court denied Kandt both notice of the potential sanction and an opportunity to respond, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion. We therefore reverse the sanction.

Section 549.211 requires a party seeking attorney-fee sanctions to provide a mandatory 21-day safe-harbor opportunity to withdraw or correct the challenged conduct before filing the motion.

Johnson Ex Rel. Johnson v. Johnson · filed 2007-01-30(4)(a)

Because respondent’s oral request and letter requesting attorney fees came after the dismissal of the OFP and almost nine months after respondent’s first motion to modify the OFP, they fail to satisfy the “safe-harbor” provisions of the statute and the rule. Appellant was not afforded time to withdraw or appropriately correct the challenged conduct pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 549.211 and Minn. R. Civ. P. 11. While the district court has the authority to assess sanctions under these provisions, that authority is circumscribed by the 21-day “safe-harbor” provisions of the statute and the rule.

Subdivision 4(a) gives the opposing party 21 days to withdraw or correct a challenged filing, and a sanctions motion cannot be filed if the filing is withdrawn during that period.

Simba v. Nwachukwu · filed 2024-09-30(4)(a)

Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and its statutory analogue, Minnesota Statutes section 549.211 (2022), authorize a party to move for sanctions against opposing counsel for certain violations of these provisions, such as falsely claiming that allegations in a claim, defense, or counterclaim or other similar document filed with the district court “have evidentiary support.” ... But the motion cannot “be filed with or presented to” the district court within 21 days of service due to a safe-harbor period. ... The 21-day safe-harbor period gives opposing counsel an opportunity to withdraw the challenged document containing the allegedly false statements or appropriately correct the alleged violation. ... Only if the alleged violation is not corrected within 21 days may the motion for sanctions be filed or presented to the district court. ... If the party seeking sanctions does not comply with the safe-harbor procedures, “the motion for sanctions must be rejected.” ... Thus, the record establishes that respondents’ attorney effectively withdrew the answer and counterpetition, the document which gave rise to the alleged violations, within the safe-harbor period. ... And because a motion for sanctions “shall not be filed” if a challenged document is withdrawn, we are unpersuaded that the district court erred by declining Simba’s request to consider his petition.

The statute requires a party to receive an opportunity to withdraw or correct a challenged paper or claim before sanctions may be awarded.

Marriage of Pfleiderer v. Pfleiderer · filed 1999-04-20(4)(a), (b)

Although the reasons for awarding attorney fees are similar, the procedure has changed. Sanctions cannot be awarded against a party under Minn.Stat. § 549.211 unless that party is given an opportunity to withdraw or correct the challenged paper or claim.

Subdivision 4(a) requires a 21-day safe-harbor period after service of a sanctions motion before the motion may be filed, and informal advance notice is insufficient.

Trotta v. Duluth Realty Company, Randy Underthun · filed 2015-04-27(4)(a)

Although the Underthuns may have been given informal advance notice of a request for sanctions, section 549.211, subdivision 4(a), and rule 11.03(a)(1) require a 21-day safe harbor after service of the motion for sanctions.

Section 549.211, subdivision 4(a), includes a 21-day safe-harbor requirement for sanctions motions.

Heino v. One 2003 Cadillac, MN License No. KFR615, VIN: 1G6KS54Y83U131208 · filed 2009-02-17subd. 4(a)

Because the state’s appeal was not frivolous, and because respondent’s motion for sanctions did not comply with Minn.Stat. § 549.211, subd. 4(a) (2008)’s 21-day safe harbor provision, respondent’s motion for attorney fees is denied.

Section 549.211 requires a sanctions motion to be served at least 21 days before filing so the challenged paper can be withdrawn or corrected, and requires factual findings and an explanation when sanctions are imposed.

In Re the Claims for No-Fault Benefits Against Progressive Insurance Co. · filed 2006-09-12(4)(a), (5)(c)

A motion for sanctions under rule 11 “shall not be filed with or presented to the [district] court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion (or such other period as the [district] court may prescribe), the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.03(a)(1); ... Minn.Stat. § 549.211, subd. 4(a) (2004) (providing essentially the same service and filing requirement). ... Both section 549.211 and rule 11 require the district court when imposing sanctions to make factual findings as to the improper conduct and explain the basis for the sanction. Minn.Stat. § 549.211, subd. 5(c) (2004); ... Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.03(c).

Section 549.211 requires use of its show-cause procedure before a court may rely on subdivision 4(b) to impose sanctions, and permits—but does not require—an award of reasonable fees and expenses to a prevailing party under subdivision 4(a).

In Re Rollins · filed 2007-09-25subd. 4(a), 4(b)

Under Minn.Stat. § 549.211, subd. 4(b), a district court may, on its own initiative, issue an order that describes conduct that is apparently sanctionable under Minn.Stat. § 549.211, subd. 2, and direct the alleged offender to show cause why it has not violated the statute. The finding that Rollins’s motion under Minn.Stat. § 549.211 was in bad faith could be read to suggest an application of Minn.Stat. § 549.211, subd. 4(b), but because the district court did not invoke the show-cause procedure described in that statute, it cannot be used to support the award of fees and costs against Rollins. ... Alternatively, a party prevailing in a sanctions dispute under Minn.Stat. § 549.211 “may” be awarded “the reasonable expenses and attorney fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion.” Minn.Stat. § 549.211, subd. 4(a). ... we decline to affirm the award of attorney fees and costs against Rollins based on an invocation of Minn.Stat. § 549.211, subd. 4(a), the authority that the district court apparently implicitly rejected. Therefore, we reverse the award of attorney fees and costs against Rollins.

Subdivision 4 requires a party seeking sanctions in a civil lawsuit to follow the statute's prescribed procedure.

Guetzkow v. Irgens · filed 2023-12-04subd. 4

In Minnesota, a statute sets forth the appropriate procedure to request sanctions in civil lawsuits. Minn. Stat. § 549.211, subd. 4 (2022). Irgens did not comply with that statute in making his request for sanctions, and thus, his request is not properly before us.

Section 549.211 requires a motion for sanctions to be made separately from other motions or requests.

Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc. · filed 2003-12-16(4)(a)

Under the plain language of the statute, the requirement that a motion for sanctions be made separately from other motions and requests is mandatory.

Section 549.211 requires proper notice for sanctions motions and permits a court to award reasonable expenses and attorney fees to the party prevailing on the motion when warranted.

Wagner v. MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS · filed 1998-07-07subd. 4(a) and subd. 4

Finally, Wagner’s motion does not comply with applicable notice procedures under the statute or easelaw. Minn.Stat. § 549.211, subd. 4(a); Uselman v. Uselman, 464 N.W.2d 130, 143 (Minn.1990). Wagner’s motion is denied. ... The school district seeks costs and attorney fees for having to defend against Wagner’s sanctions motion. The statute specifically provides: ... If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the [sanctions] motion the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. ... Minn.Stat. § 549.211, subd. 4 (Supp.1997). We conclude that Wagner’s motion warrants an award of costs and fees. The school district is awarded $250.

Section 549.211, subdivision 2(2), permits sanctions when claims are not warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for changing or establishing law.

Lamere v. St. Jude Medical, Inc. · filed 2013-02-19subd. 2(2)

St. Jude moved for attorney fees on appeal as a sanction, seeking just over $17,000, pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 549.211. Sanctions may be imposed if the claims raised by Ms. Lamere are not “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.” See Minn.Stat. § 549.211, subd. 2(2). Because there is a federal-circuit split on the issue of preemption and a lack of clarity regarding the interpretation of Minnesota’s wrongful-death statute of limitations, we conclude that the appeal was meritorious, and we decline to award attorney fees. We therefore deny St. Jude’s motion.

Section 549.211 requires attorneys and unrepresented parties to certify that court filings are proper, legally warranted, factually supported, and that factual denials are evidence-based.

Wolf Motor Co. v. One 2000 Ford F-350, VIN IFTSX31F1YEC59488 · filed 2003-04-08subds. 2, 3

Minn. Stat § 549.211, subd. 2 (2002), provides that an attorney or an unrepresented party who presents any document to the court must certify four things: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law; (3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to 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 a lack of information or belief. ... These findings reflect the statutory criteria for awarding attorney fees. ... The evidence supports the district court’s findings; we conclude that the award of attorney fees was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 549.211 permits a court to award attorney fees after notice and an opportunity to respond when claims are brought for an improper purpose or are unwarranted by existing law.

Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. Midway Massage, Inc. · filed 2005-03-29subds. 2, 3, 5

A district court may award attorney fees as a sanction when, following notice to the offending party and an opportunity to respond, the court determines that either (1) the claims were presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation, or (2) the claims were unwarranted by existing law. Minn.Stat. § 549.211, subds. 2, 3, 5 (2004). The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney fees.

Section 549.211 requires attorneys and parties to certify that court filings are proper, supported, and nonfrivolous, sets procedures for seeking sanctions, and permits reasonable fees and expenses directly resulting from a violation.

Peterson v. 2004 Ford Crown Victoria Vin: 2FAHP74WX4X158445 · filed 2010-12-14subd. 2, subd. 4(a)-(b), subd. 5(a)

Attorney fees are available by statute and by court rule. Minnesota law states that an attorney or pro se party is certifying that any document or argument presented to the court: (1) is not made for an improper purpose; (2) is warranted by existing law or is a nonfrivolous argument for a change in existing law; (3) has evi-dentiary support; and (4) any denials of factual contentions are based on the evidence or reasonably based on a lack of information or belief. Minn.Stat. § 549.211, subd. 2 (2008). A party seeking sanctions must serve a separate sanction’s motion on the nonmoving party, wait 21 days, and only if the challenged conduct has not been withdrawn or corrected, file the motion for sanctions with the district court. Id., subd. 4(a). The court may also enter an order on its own initiative. Id., subd. 4(b). Sanctions may consist of an order directing the payment of reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation. Id., subd. 5(a).

Section 549.211 imposes an objective reasonableness standard and gives district courts discretion to impose sanctions for violations.

In re Estate of: Alice I. Engman, Decedent. · filed 2017-01-30

A similar standard is imposed by the statute. See Minn. Stat. § 549.211 (2016). If an attorney violates the rule or the statute, a district court has discretion to impose sanctions. ... The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to impose sanctions for those reasons.

Section 549.211 permits sanctions for legal contentions lacking an objectively reasonable basis and requires a mandatory 21-day safe-harbor period before a sanctions motion is filed or presented.

Gibson v. Trustees of the Minnesota State Basic Building Trades Fringe Benefits Funds · filed 2005-09-27subds. 2-4

A party and its counsel may be sanctioned if counsel violates his or her duty to ensure that “the claims, defenses and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.” Minn.Stat. § 549.211, subds. 2-3; see Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.02, 11.03 (stating the same rule). Whether to award sanctions requires determining whether counsel had an objectively reasonable basis for making the fac tual or legal claim. ... Appellant argues that the sanctions award is procedurally defective because respondents did not, as required by Minn.Stat. § 549.211, subd. 4 and Minn. R. Civ. Proc. 11.03(a)(1), serve appellant with the motion at least 21 days before filing or presenting the motion to the court. This 21-day period is a “safe harbor” time during which a party or its attorney can correct or withdraw the offending conduct and compliance with the 21-day “safe harbor” provision is mandatory.

Section 549.211 permits sanctions for frivolous arguments seeking to alter or extend existing law, even when framed as issues of first impression.

Cole v. Star Tribune · filed 1998-07-14subd. 2(2), subd. 3

Minn.Stat. § 549.211, subd. 2(2) (Supp.1997) (no sanc-tionable violation occurs for non-frivolous arguments for extension, modification, or reversal of existing law). In some respects, almost any issue could be characterized as one of first impression. ... Therefore, the possibility of characterizing an issue as one of first impression does ... not ... preclude the district court from awarding sanctions against a party or an attorney for pursuing such an issue if the conduct of the party or of the attorney is otherwise sanctionable.

Section 549.211 requires certification that pleadings and motion papers have legal and factual support, permits sanctions against attorneys, law firms, or parties who violate that requirement, and applies an objective reasonableness standard; represented parties are not sanctionable for lacking legal support under subdivision 5(b).

Antler Ridge, LLC v. Citizens State Bank-Midwest, Perry Hillman · filed 2014-07-21(2), (3), and (5)(b)

An attorney presenting pleadings or motion papers to the court certifies that the claims are supported by existing law, or a non-frivolous argument to change the law; and that the factual allegations have evidentiary support. Minn. Stat. § 549.211, subd. 2; Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.02. A district court may impose sanctions against “the attorneys, law firms, or parties” who violate these requirements. Minn. Stat. § 549.211, subd. 3. But a represented party cannot be sanctioned for violation of the certification that claims are based on existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension of the law. Minn. Stat. § 549.211, subd. 5(b); Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.03(b)(1). In determining whether sanctions are appropriate, the district court applies an objective standard, analyzing whether the party’s conduct was reasonable under the circumstances.

Section 549.211 applies an objective standard and permits sanctions when claims are presented to cause unnecessary delay or needless increases in litigation costs.

In re Cross Application of Anthony E. Sampair and Laurie K. Sampair · filed 2014-12-08(2)

Conduct is measured by an objective standard under section 549.211. Radloff v. First Am. Nat. Bank of St. Cloud, N.A., 470 N.W.2d 154, 157 (Minn. App. 1991). Sanctions may be imposed if the claims raised by appellants are presented to “cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.” Minn. Stat. § 549.211, subd. (2).

Subsection 2 authorizes sanctions for a frivolous appeal based on frivolous arguments, but sanctions rules are construed narrowly to avoid deterring legitimate or arguably legitimate claims.

Lubben v. Copart, Inc., Metro Salvage Pool, Inc. d/b/a Metro Remarketing, and Copart, Inc., Third Party v. True No · filed 2015-12-14(2)

This court has the “authority to impose sanctions for frivolous appeal . . . that are based on frivolous argument” under Minn. Stat. § 549.211(2) and Minn. R. Civ. P. 11. ... But it is also true that the rules for sanctions must be construed narrowly in order not to deter “legitimate or arguably legitimate claims.” ... Lubben’s claim that, once his bid for the corn head was accepted, the corn head was his, was “arguably legitimate.”

Section 549.211 permits sanctions for pleadings presented for an improper purpose, frivolous under existing law, or unsupported by the evidence, but a party is not sanctionable merely for surviving dismissal, losing on the merits, or appealing.

Dodge v. Stack · filed 2016-05-02subds. 2, 3

A court may impose sanctions if a pleading is presented for an improper purpose, frivolous under existing law, or not supported by the evidence. Minn. Stat. § 549.211, subds. 2, 3 (2014). A decision whether to award sanctions under section 549.211 rests within the district court’s broad discretion. Cargill Inc. v. Jorgenson Farms, 719 N.W.2d 226, 234 (Minn. App. 2006). ... But because the district court denied Stack’s motion to dismiss following the presentation of Dodge’s case-in-chief, he should not be subject to sanctions. See Uselman v. Uselman, 464 N.W.2d 130, 144 (Minn. 1990) (stating that a party who survived five motions for summary judgment or dismissal “with the major claims intact should not be subject to sanctions after trial predicated on these surviving claims”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Radloff v. First Am. Nat’l Bank of St. Cloud, N.A., 470 N.W.2d 154 (Minn. App. 1991), review denied (Minn. July 24, 1991). ... Similarly, Dodge is not subject to sanctions simply for failing to prevail below or for exercising his right to appeal. See Radloff, 470 N.W.2d at 157 (“Sanctions are not appropriate merely because a party does not prevail on the merits”); see also Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03(a) (providing a right to appeal from a final judgment). ... The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to award Stack sanctions against Dodge. See Cargill Inc., 719 N.W.2d at 234.

Minn. Stat. § 549.211 does not authorize a federal court to impose sanctions when the court lacks authority to do so under the statute.

Mathias v. Hettich · filed 2020-09-24

First, the Court cannot order sanctions under Minn. Stat. § 549.211 or under Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.03 because it lacks such authority.

Section 549.211 permits an appellate court, in its discretion, to award reasonable attorney fees when a party acts in bad faith by asserting frivolous or unfounded claims solely to harass or delay proceedings.

Marriage of Toughill v. Toughill · filed 2000-05-09

Minn. Stat. § 549.211 (1998) allows this court, in its discretion, to award reasonable attorney fees when a party acts in bad faith by asserting frivolous or unfounded claims solely to harass or to delay proceedings.

Section 549.211 allows sanctions for a pleading presented without reasonable investigation and does not require an express finding of bad faith.

Cargill, Inc. v. Jorgenson Farms · filed 2006-08-08subd. 2(1)

But the current version of section 549.211 does not require an explicit finding of “bad faith.”

Section 549.211 applies only to causes of action arising on or after August 1, 1997.

Douglas v. Schuette · filed 2000-02-29

The 1997 amendments replaced Minn.Stat. § 549.21 with a provision having a similar purpose but a different procedure. ... The new provision is effective only for causes of action rising on or after August 1, 1997. ... Here, the suit producing the sanctions at issue was filed in 1996. Therefore, the district court’s use of the old provision (Minn.Stat. § 549.21), rather than the new provision (Minn.Stat. § 549.211), to determine the propriety of awarding sanctions was not erroneous.