Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rechtzigel v. Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

January 20, 2017

Gene Rechtzigel individually, Gene Rechtzigel as Personal Representative for Estate of Frank H. Rechtzigel and as Trustee of any Trust thereunder, Gene Rechtzigel as Trustee for the Evelyn I. Rechtzigel Trust, and Rex Rentals-F.R.R., Plaintiffs,
v.
Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A., Mohrman, Kaardal, & Erickson, P.A., Erik Gregg Kaardal, in individual and official capacity, William F. Mohrman, in individual and official capacity, Gregory M. Erickson, in individual and official capacity, James R. Magnuson, in individual and official capacity, Fischer Market Place, LLP, Gerald S. Duffy, in individual and official capacity, Matthew S. Duffy, in individual and official capacity, Michael R. Moline, in individual and official capacity, Fischer Sand & Aggregate, Peter Wells Fischer, in individual and official capacity, Magellan Pipeline Company, LP, Magellan Midstream Partners, LP, Christopher R. Grote, in individual and official capacity, City of Apple Valley, Michael G. Dougherty, in individual and official capacity, Robert B. Bauer, in individual and official capacity, Brian John Wisdorf, in individual and official capacity, Thomas R. Donely, in individual and official capacity, Mary Hamann-Roland, in individual and official capacity, John Bergman, in individual and official capacity, Tom Goodwin, in individual and official capacity, Ruth Grendahl, in individual and official capacity, Clint Hooppaw, in individual and official capacity, Examiner of Titles, Dakota County, James P. O'Connell, in individual and official capacity, Madhavi Rajulapati, Kristin Gasteazoro, Michelle Larson, and Lyle Hearn, Defendants.

          Gene Rechtzigel, pro se.

          Gregory M. Erickson, Esq., Mohrman, Kaardal, & Erickson, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Defendants Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A., Mohrman, Kaardal, & Erickson, P.A., Erik Gregg Kaardal, William F. Mohrman, Gregory M. Erickson, and James R. Magnuson.

          Aaron R. Hartman, Esq., Monroe Moxness Berg, P.A., Edina, MN, on behalf of Defendants Fischer Market Place, LLP, Fischer Sand & Aggregate, and Peter Wells Fischer.

          Colleen McGarry, Esq., Meagher & Geer, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Defendants Gerald S. Duffy, Matthew S. Duffy, Michael R. Moline, Michael G. Dougherty, Robert B. Bauer, Brian John Wisdorf, and Thomas R. Donely.

          Bryan A. Welp, Esq., Lindquist & Vennum, LLP, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Defendants Magellan Pipeline Company, LP, Magellan Midstream Partners, LP, and Christopher R. Grote.

          Shelley M. Ryan, Esq., Hoff, Barry & Kozar, P.A., Eden Prairie, MN, on behalf of Defendants City of Apple Valley, Mary Hamann-Roland, John Bergman, Tom Goodwin, Ruth Grendahl, and Clint Hooppaw.

          Jeffrey A. Timmerman, Esq., Assistant County Attorney, Dakota County Attorney's Office, Hastings, MN, on behalf of Defendant James P. O'Connell.

          Eric J. Steinhoff, Esq., Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Defendant Kristin Gasteazoro.

          Michael J. McNamara, Esq., American Family Insurance, Eden Prairie, MN, on behalf of Defendant Michelle Larson.

          Madhavi Rajulapati, pro se.

          Lyle Hearn, pro se.

          ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

          ANN D. MONTGOMERY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for a ruling on Defendants' Motions for Sanctions [Docket Nos. 113, 120, 125, 133]. For the reasons stated below, the Motions for Sanctions are denied.

         The Motions for Sanctions are based upon pro se plaintiff Gene Rechtzigel's (“Rechtzigel”) filing of an Amended Complaint [Docket No. 26] alleging, among other things, that Defendants conspired to destroy his “liberty interests, real property, and constitutional rights” through their actions in multiple state court proceedings related to a property dispute. Am. Compl. ¶ 9. Defendants argue that sanctions against Rechtzigel are warranted under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the Amended Complaint was (1) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.