SPV-LS, LLC v. The Estate of Nancy Bergman, No. 17-3177 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Estate appealed the district court's order denying its motion for reconsideration of an adverse grant of summary judgment. SPV cross-appealed the denial of its 28 U.S.C. 1927 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g)(3) sanctions against the Estate's attorneys.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the Estate's motion for reconsideration because the Estate sought to use its motion for reconsideration for the impermissible purpose of introducing new arguments it could have raised earlier and failed to support those arguments with any evidence even after receiving additional time for discovery. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 28 U.S.C. 1927 sanctions. The court reversed in part, holding that the district court erred by denying the Estate's request for sanctions under Rule 26(g)(1) with respect to Attorney Kroll. However, the district court did not abuse its discretion denying sanctions against Attorney Donahoe.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Kelly and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil procedure. Because the estate used a motion for reconsideration of the district court's ruling for the improper purpose of introducing new arguments it could have raised earlier, and because the estate failed to support these arguments with any evidence, even after receiving additional time for discovery, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reconsider its summary judgment order; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' request to impose 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1927 sanctions against the estate's attorneys based on its determination that it was plaintiffs' actions, rather than counsel's, that caused any multiplication of proceedings; however, the court erred in denying the estate's request for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1) with respect to Attorney Kroll as it erroneously assessed the evidence concerning a possible fraud, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings on the issue; the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rule 26(g)(1) sanctions against Attorney Donahoe.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.