- 27 -
Respondent implies that counsel filed the motions only to vex
respondent. Respondent argues that the lack of citation to
relevant legal authorities in the oppositions to the motions for
summary judgment signed by both Mr. Jones and Ms. Lacorte
indicates their lack of legal research or their willful disregard
of adverse authority. Respondent concludes:
Mr. Jones’ entire conduct in this case constitutes
bad faith, in that he knowingly or recklessly filed
petitions, motions for leave to amend petitions,
amended petitions, and oppositions to respondent’s
summary judgment motions that raised nothing but
frivolous, groundless, or statutorily precluded
arguments. Ms. Lacorte’s involvement was limited to
participation in the filing of motions for leave to
amend petition and oppositions to respondent’s summary
judgment motions.
Respondent claims that he incurred excessive costs of $25,800 in
litigating all of these cases and asks payment in that amount.
Alternatively, if we do not impose excess costs on Mr. Jones
and Ms. Lacorte under section 6673(a)(2), respondent asks that we
sanction both individuals under Rule 33(b), which sets standards
in connection with counsel’s signature on a pleading and provides
that counsel may be sanctioned for failure to meet those
standards.
Mr. Jones and Ms. Lacorte advance as their own defense the
arguments made on behalf of each petitioner. They also claim
errors in respondent’s calculation of his costs. Mr. Jones
states that, at all times relevant to these cases, Ms. Lacorte
was his employee, subject to his direction and advice, and is in
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007