- 25 -
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 $12,798 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 petitioners. 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 no way
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007