Opinion ID: 885371
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: issues

Text: ¶ 56 The following issue is presented on cross-appeal by Friends of the Wild Swan: ¶ 57 Did the District Court err when it denied Friends of the Wild Swan's motion for imposition of Rule 11, M.R.Civ.P., sanctions against the DNRC? ¶ 58 This Court gives a district court broad discretion to determine whether the factual circumstances of a particular case amount to frivolous or abusive litigation tactics. Accordingly, we apply the following standard of review: A district court's findings of fact will be overturned if clearly erroneous. The court's legal conclusion that the facts constitute a violation of Rule 11 will be reversed if the determination constitutes an abuse of discretion. We will review the case de novo only if the violation is based on the legal sufficiency of a plea or motion. D'Agostino v. Swanson (1990), 240 Mont. 435, 446, 784 P.2d 919, 926. ¶ 59 Friends of the Wild Swan contends that Rule 11, M.R.Civ.P. clearly applies to the circumstances underlying the DNRC's request for an injunction bond pursuant to § 77-1-110, MCA, and request for modification of the District Court's injunction. Friends of the Wild Swan asserts that the DNRC's request of the District Court to allow it to sell the illegally harvested timber and to require an injunction bond, was made solely to harass and cause needless increase in the costs of this litigation. ¶ 60 Rule 11, M.R.Civ.P., provides: The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by the signer that the signer had read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of the signer's knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or increase in the cost of litigation.... If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction.... ¶ 61 The District Court found the following: The fact that DNRC may have violated the mitigation controls prescribed in the EIS does not implicate Rule 11. If DNRC acted in bad faith or violated the EIS, there are specific statutory remedies, but Rule 11 sanctions is not one of those remedies. Nor does Rule 11 constitute grounds to impose sanctions merely because DNRC sought to have a bond posted. Section 77-1-110, MCA, is a fairly new provision, having been enacted in 1995. The Court cannot say DNRC acted in bad faith by seeking to have a bond posted. Therefore, the Court declines to impose Rule 11 sanctions against DNRC. ¶ 62 We conclude that the District Court's findings that the DNRC did not act in bad faith are not clearly erroneous, and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. Therefore, we affirm the District Court's denial of Rule 11, M.R.Civ.P. sanctions against the DNRC. ¶ 63 The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. KARLA M. GRAY, JIM REGNIER, JAMES C. NELSON, and W. WILLIAM LEAPHART, JJ., concur.