Opinion ID: 883920
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: issues

Text: Was the court's sanction an abuse of discretion? The District Court found that Lovins unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings in his two actions concerning the hospital. The court stated that it could by no stretch of the imagination find that there existed a good faith argument or reasonable facts on which to base this litigation. As a sanction under Rule 11, M.R.Civ.P., the court prohibited Lovins for the next four years from commencing or filing any further litigation in Toole County as a pro se litigant without first submitting the pleadings to and obtaining permission to file from a district judge. Rule 11, M.R.Civ.P., provides, in relevant part: The signature of an attorney or party [on a pleading, motion, or other paper filed] constitutes a certificate by the signer that the signer has 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 needless 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, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable attorney's fee. In applying Rule 11, this Court has stated: Although Montana's Rule 11 does not state that a trial court must give notice to show cause and hold a hearing before imposing Rule 11 sanctions, we hold that a trial court should do so in order to provide the party with due process. The party should be afforded sufficient time in which to prepare its case against imposition of sanctions. In addition, a trial court should specify in its judgment or order upon which pleading(s), motion(s), or other paper(s) it bases imposition of Rule 11 sanctions. Lindey's, Inc. v. Goodover (1994), 264 Mont. 489, 497, 872 P.2d 767, 772. No hearing was held on the question of sanctions in this case. Lindey's clearly requires a hearing before Rule 11 sanctions may be imposed. Because of the court's failure to hold such a hearing, the sanction herein imposed cannot stand and is therefore reversed. We affirm the judgment of the District Court with the exception of the imposition of sanctions. HUNT, ERDMANN, LEAPHART and TRIEWEILER, JJ., concur.