When an attorney acts in bad faith in a court proceeding, the standard of proof for imposing bad-faith sanctions may not make any difference. That is what a U.S. Magistrate Judge held In Lanard Toys Ltd. v. Dolgencorp LLC, NO. 3:15-CV-849-J-34PDB, 2019 WL 1003134, at *2 n.3 (M.D. Fla. March 1, 2019) (Barksdale, USMJ).
In that case, the Court ultimately denied a defendant's request either for dismissal of the case with prejudice or alternatively for sanctions regardless of what standard of proof applies to imposing attorney sanctions for "subjective bad faith." The defendant's request in that case was bottomed on the Court's "inherent powers." This did not persuade the Magistrate-Judge.
The Court held in this case that it denied the defendant's motion for sanctions whether the Court applied a high standard of clear and convincing proof or a lower standard more or less based on the circumstances. Lanard Toys Ltd. v. Dolgencorp LLC, NO. 3:15-CV-849-J-34PDB, 2019 WL 1003134, at *2 n. 3 (M.D. Fla. March 1, 2019) (Barksdale, USMJ).
These and many other issues of bad faith are discussed in Chapter 2, titled History and Contrasting Good Faith Requirements, in Volume 1 of Dennis J. Wall, LITIGATION AND PREVENTION OF INSURER BAD FAITH (West Third Edition, 2020 Supplements in process).
Please read the disclaimer. ©2020 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments