Opinion ID: 1707832
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Background Proceedings Regarding the Motion for Sanctions.

Text: One month following the district court's rulings on the motions for summary judgment and adjudication of law points, Elmer and SSFI filed the motion for sanctions against Polking. About a week later Jane appealed from the district court's adverse summary judgment ruling. The district court on its own initiative entered an order, shortly after Jane appealed, holding in abeyance a final ruling on the motion for sanctions until Jane's appeal was decided. Our court of appeals affirmed the district court ruling in December 1991. Our court denied Jane's application for further review, and procedendo issued on March 4, 1992. The motion for sanctions lay dormant until April 28, 1992. On that date Elmer and SSFI filed a motion to amend pleadings, seeking additional sanctions against Ordway and his firm. Polking resisted the motion to amend on jurisdictional grounds. Following a hearing, the district court denied the motion to amend. The court denied the motion because it sought to add a new party without notice and asserted substantially additional grounds. But the court also concluded it still had jurisdiction to consider the original motion for sanctions. Following a hearing, the district court denied the motion for sanctions. It is from this ruling that Elmer and SSFI appeal.