Returning Subscriber?
Not a Subscriber to Litigation Pathfinder?
Get the full text of this legal issue, including links to cited primary law, along with unlimited access 1,000’s of other legal issues…and more!
Area of Law: | Litigation & Procedure |
Keywords: | Punitive damages; Denial of claim |
Jurisdiction: | Minnesota |
Cited Cases: | None |
Cited Statutes: | None |
Date: | 04/01/2013 |
Generally, a motion to amend should be denied when (1) the claim is not legally cognizable; or (2) the moving party fails to present sufficient evidence to support it. Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting Inc., 526 N.W.2d 402, 405 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
With respect to a requested punitive damages amendment in particular, when the moving party has not established a prima facie case for any of her claims, “it is axiomatic that [she] cannot sustain [her] burden to show that a punitive damage claim is warranted.” Hanson v. Friends of Minnesota Sinfonia, No. A03-1061 (Minn. Ct. App. June 8, 2004) (citing Hern v. Bankers Life Cas. Co., 133 F. Supp. 2d 1130, 1136 (D. Minn. 2001)).
[…]
Subscribe to Litigation Pathfinder
To get the full-text of this Legal Memorandum ... and more!
(Month-to-month and annual subscriptions available)
Get the full text of this legal issue, including links to cited primary law, along with unlimited access 1,000’s of other legal issues…and more!