Lawyer Had A Factual Basis For His Arguments – Sanctions Denied


Plaintiffs won a verdict of $544,276.14 against a real estate promoter. Plaintiffs alleged that they were fraudulently induced to enter into a transaction. After the verdict, they sought sanctions against Defendants’ counsel, accusing him of making “blatant[ly] false statements regarding the bank accounts and real estate properties.” The court denied the sanctions motion on the ground that the lawyer had proceeded in good faith and had a reasonable basis for his arguments.

After the verdict, plaintiffs sought sanctions against Defendants’ counsel, accusing him of making “blatant[ly] false statements regarding the bank accounts and real estate properties.” The court denied the sanctions motion on the ground that the lawyer had proceeded in good faith and had a reasonable basis for his arguments.

Comment: I’m not a fan of this type of sanctions motion – when you win a verdict, you should have the sense to walk away gracefully.

Source: RUI HE v. ROM, Dist. Court, ND Ohio 2017 – Google Scholar

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s