Hennepin County Government Center, downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota
Malicious Prosecution lawsuit
Gregerson v. Smith, Parker, et. al.

Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint to Claim Punitive Damages

malicious prosecution
docket
-Complaint
-Smith's answer
-Kazaryan's answer
-motion to dismiss
-punitive damages
-summary judgment
discovery
appeal
petition for review

Under Minnesota law, civil plaintiffs are not allowed to request punitive damages when they file a complaint (lawsuit). They are required, instead, to request permission from the court to add a claim for punitive damages after the complaint has been filed. The request (motion) must include affidavits that provide clear and convincing prima facie evidence that the defendant showed a deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others (see Minn. Stat. ยง 549.191).

I requested a hearing on such a motion, scheduled for Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009. Below is a redacted version of my memorandum of law in support of the motion (the exhibits are not included).

Memorandum of law supporting plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a claim of punitive damages

A response was served by counsel for Boris Parker, Bassford Remele, and Saliterman & Siefferman (Paul Peterson, Esq.). In brief, they argue my evidence does not amount to prima facie clear and convincing evidence that the Parker Defendants had a willful disregard for the rights of others.

I wrote a reply brief, linked to below (again, exhibits are not included).

Reply in support of plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a claim of punitive damages

The Court's Ruling (2009-11-16)

Order and Memorandum Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Amend

Post a comment on this page

Disclaimer: This is a personal website expressing the opinions and observations of the author.
Website first posted: July 4th, 2009. This page last modified: 2010-11-05
The underlying defamation lawsuit -- Chris Gregerson (chris@cgstock.com)
http://www.cgstock.com/malicious_prosecution