As a result, the Section plainly reflects the negative consequence of noncompliance — namely, that the Motion to Amend the pleading, so as to state a punitive damage claim, will not be allowed. Cf.,Harmon v. Mattson, 1999 WL 1057236 at *7 (Minn.App., November 23, 1999) (reversing the Trial Court's decision to grant punitive damages because the plaintiffs "failed to submit supporting affidavits when they moved to add punitive damages to their claim * * *."), rev. denied (Minn., January 18, 2000).
As a result, the Section plainly reflects the negative consequence of noncompliance — namely, that the Motion to Amend the pleading, so as to state a punitive damage claim, will not be allowed. Cf., Harmon v. Mattson, 1999 WL 1057236 at *7 (Minn.App., November 23, 1999) (reversing the Trial Court's decision to grant punitive damages because the plaintiffs "failed to submit supporting affidavits when they moved to add punitive damages to their claim * * *."), rev. denied (Minn., January 18, 2000). Here, the Defendants complain that the Plaintiffs have failed to support their Motion with a competent Affidavit, both procedurally, and substantively.