Kunzer v. Foster

Background

Kenneth R. Kunzer, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a 51-page complaint with 316 paragraphs against nine defendants. The complaint concerned a restrictive-covenant dispute and related state-court litigation. Mark J. Kemper moved for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Kunzer opposed the motion.

Rule 11 violation

Rule 11 requires a person filing or advocating a court paper to make a reasonable inquiry and certify that the filing is not for an improper purpose, that its legal claims are supported by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for changing the law, and that its factual assertions have evidentiary support or are likely to have such support after investigation.

The court found that Kunzer violated Rule 11. Relying in part on its contemporaneously filed order granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss, the court found that Kunzer’s federal claims were patently without merit and that the complaint did not identify a debatably plausible federal claim. The court also found that Kunzer’s repeated allegations and assertion that he had investigated the law did not establish a good-faith basis for the complaint.

The court concluded that Kunzer filed the lawsuit for an improper purpose: to harass people who had prevailed against him in the state-court action, as well as their lawyers and the judge who presided over that action. In reaching that conclusion, the court considered Kunzer’s history of filing similar actions, his prior sanctions and filing restrictions, his continued reliance on federal criminal statutes that do not provide private rights of action, and the burden his filings imposed on the defendants and the court.

Sanction and disposition

Kemper requested a filing restriction and also sought attorney fees, costs, disbursements, insurance deductible payments, and other defense expenses. The court determined that a filing restriction was necessary to deter further frivolous and harassing litigation. It noted that prior monetary sanctions had not stopped Kunzer’s conduct and that he had already received warnings about possible filing restrictions.

The court therefore granted Kemper’s Motion for Sanctions. It restricted Kunzer from filing any new civil actions in the District of Minnesota related to Minnesota Case No. 03-CV-22-1539 unless he is represented by counsel or obtains prior written authorization from a judicial officer of the District of Minnesota. The court denied Kemper’s request for monetary relief because Rule 11 sanctions are meant to deter misconduct, not compensate an opposing party for all defense costs. The order directs that judgment be entered.