Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Karen C. Charland v. Little Six, Inc., 00-3397 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 00-3397 Visitors: 35
Filed: Jun. 27, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 00-3397 _ Karen C. Charland, * * Plaintiff - Appellant * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Little Six, doing business as Mystic * Lake Casino, Inc., a foreign * [Unpublished] corporation; Mdewakanton Sioux * Community, sued as Shakopee * Mdewakanton Sioux Community, * * Defendants - Appellees. * _ Submitted: June 13, 2001 Filed: June 27, 2001 _ Before MURPHY, HEANEY, and BEAM Circuit Ju
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 00-3397 ___________ Karen C. Charland, * * Plaintiff - Appellant * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Little Six, doing business as Mystic * Lake Casino, Inc., a foreign * [Unpublished] corporation; Mdewakanton Sioux * Community, sued as Shakopee * Mdewakanton Sioux Community, * * Defendants - Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: June 13, 2001 Filed: June 27, 2001 ___________ Before MURPHY, HEANEY, and BEAM Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Karen C. Charland, an employee of Mystic Lake Casino, was injured when she sustained a gunshot wound to the head while in a casino parking lot. Her employment was subsequently terminated, and she brought this action for negligence, breach of contract, and violations of the Minnesota whistleblower act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Title VII. The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the defendants sought Rule 11 sanctions. After a hearing, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court impose sanctions against Charland's attorney in the amount of $19,173.17 for frivolous allegations not warranted by existing law. The district court adopted the magistrate's report but imposed sanctions of $5,000. Charland argues on this appeal that the sanctions are barred by res judicata since this court did not award sanctions on an earlier appeal, that her suit was not frivolous, and that the amount of sanctions was too severe. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment on the basis of the district court's opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer