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!
Issue: Under what grounds should a motion to amend to state a claim for punitive damages be denied in Minnesota?
| 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)).
[…]