Harmon v. Mattson

2 Citing cases

  1. Murrin v. Fischer

    Civ. No. 07-1295 (PJS/RLE) (D. Minn. Jan. 18, 2008)

    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).

  2. Berczyk v. Emerson Tool Company

    Civ. No. 02-1335 (RHK/RLE) (D. Minn. Sep. 16, 2003)   Cited 39 times
    In Berczyk v. Emerson Tool Co., 291 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (D. Minn. 2003), the court rejected an argument that the manufacturer exhibited deliberate disregard by failing to issue a recall, simply noting that Minnesota has not recognized any duty to recall or retrofit a product.

    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.