Court Opinion

ID: 9526719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:22:33.10404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:12.657420
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 16] I respectfully dissent.
[¶ 17] The district court lays out the law and the facts, finds Empower the Taxpayer’s suit against the named defendants frivolous, and states:
This Court finds it appropriate to sanction Empower the Taxpayer for naming Divide County Commissioner Doug Graupe, Cass County Commissioner Scott Wagner, Wahpeton Finance Director Darcie Huwe, and Williams County Auditor Beth Innis in the complaint because a competent attorney could not have had a good faith belief that a cause of action exists merely for a public official stating his or her opposition to an initiated measure.
[¶ 18] It is clear from the arguments before the district court and this Court that the plaintiffs were, at a minimum, using the suit for the improper purpose of harassing the defendants and seeking to oppress the defendants’ constitutional right to free speech and that no lawyer could have reasonably believed the plaintiffs were entitled to proceed as they have done in this suit.
[¶ 19] No party argues they are unable to understand the basis of the district court’s decision, although the plaintiffs disagree that the basis is adequate to sanction them. I would hold that the district court’s basis is adequate and that it did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning the plaintiffs.
[¶ 20] The majority says the district court did not allocate responsibility among the plaintiffs to pay the sanctions, but the plaintiffs have not raised this as an issue on appeal. Presumably, they are able to work this out among themselves.
[¶ 21] Finally, I believe this Court should now answer the question of the permissibility of the district court’s ordering the plaintiffs to publish a retraction of their allegations of corruption.
[¶ 22] Dale V. Sandstrom