How-To: Write a Motion for Sanctions

• bad faith

"The goal of Rule 11 sanctions is to ‘reduce frivolous claims, defenses, or motions, and to deter costly meritless maneuver"

"Rule 11 sanctions are designed to discourage dilatory or abusive tactics and help to streamline the litigation process by lessening frivolous claims or defenses."

"Rule 11 sanctions are warranted when a party files a pleading that (1) has no reasonable factual basis; (2) is based on a legal theory that has no reasonable chance of success and that cannot be advanced as a reasonable argument to change existing law; and (3) is filed in bad faith for an improper purpose."

"Finally, counsel for Defendant City is not unaware of the amendment of Rule 11 effective December 1, 1993, particularly insofar as paragraph (c)(1)(A) now sets forth a procedure for service of a motion upon the offending counsel prior to filing with the Court, and the twenty-one (21) day "safe harbor" provision that is also now in Rule 11. Further, the Defendant City has not served such a motion upon Plaintiff's counsel in this case. ...Notwithstanding this admission, Springfield insists that complying with the "safe harbor" provision would have been a "vain act," for Ridder's counsel "clearly evidenced a willingness to persist in meritless claims."... Rule 11 cases emerging in the wake of the 1993 amendments have found the "safe harbor" provision to be an absolute requirement. See Elliott v. Tilton, 64 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir. 1995) (recognizing that the plain language of the rule indicates that the "safe harbor" provision is mandatory); Hadges v. Yonkers Racing Corp., 48 F.3d 1320, 1328 (2d Cir. 1995) (reversing sanctions award in part because no evidence indicated compliance with "safe harbor" period that current version of Rule 11 specifically mandates); Thomas v. Treasury Management Ass'n, 158 F.R.D. 364, 369 (D. Md. 1994) (finding that failure to comply with "safe harbor" absolute prerequisite precludes sanctions); United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local No. 576 v. Four B Corp., 893 F. Supp. 980, 987 (D. Kan. 1995) (stating that Rule 11 "prohibits" the filing of a motion until twenty-one days after the "safe harbor" service), aff'd, 83 F.3d 433 (10th Cir. 1996). We agree that the rule is unquestionably explicit with respect to this issue. The plain language of Rule 11 specifies that unless a movant has complied with the twenty-one day "safe harbor" service, the motion for sanctions "shall not be filed with or presented to the court." Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(1)(A). Springfield did not comply with the "safe harbor" procedural prerequisite; therefore, the City's Rule 11 motion should not have been presented to the court."

"We granted certiorari to decide whether a federal district court may impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a case in which the district court is later determined to be without subject-matter jurisdiction... We conclude that in the circumstances presented here it may do so."

"Attorneys and clients facing possible discipline under Rule 11 have interests qualifying for protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before any governmental deprivation of a property interest."

"Thus, although an effective opportunity to contest and explain does not always necessitate a separate, full-blown evidentiary hearing, there must be some reasonable opportunity to challenge the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions."

"Because a party proceeding pro se cannot have incurred attorney's fees as an expense, a district court cannot order a violating party to pay a pro se litigant a reasonable attorney's fee as part of a sanction."

• Contact TBD for more free samples

• Item 1.02