Filed July 9, 2018
As to the first prong, the objective standard for testing conduct under Rule 11 is “reasonableness under the circumstances.” See Baker v. Alderman, 158 F.3d 516, 524 (11th Cir. 1998). Sanctions for an objectively frivolous claim are proper in circumstances where: (1) the party files a pleading that has no reasonable factual basis; (2) the party files a pleading that is based upon a legal theory that has no reasonable chance of success and that cannot be advanced as a reasonable argument to change existing law; or (3) the party files a pleading in bad faith for an improper purpose.
Filed December 4, 2014
Under Rule 11, a motion for sanctions can occur after the Court dismisses the case. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 396 (1990); Baker v. Alderman, 158 F.3d 516, 523 (11th Cir. 1998); Metrocorps, Inc. v. E. Mass. Junior Drum & Bugle Corps Ass’n, 912 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1990); In re Kunstler, 914 F.2d 505, 512-13 (4th Cir. 1990); Smart Options, LLC v. Jump Rope, Inc., No. 12-cv-2498, 2013 WL 500861, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2013); Lucka v. United Parcel Serv., No. 1:07-cv-1497, 2008 WL 2346147, at *2 (S.D. Ind. June 6, 2008). Sanctions will normally be decided after judgment, if based on pleadings: “[I]t is anticipated that in the case of pleadings the sanctions issue under Rule 11 normally will be determined at the end of the litigation ….”
Filed March 7, 2014
of Pattern & Model Makers Ass’n of Warren & Vicinity Defined Benefit Pension Plan, 795 F. Supp. 825, 839 (E.D. Mich. 1992); Sole Const., Inc. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., No. 10-11879, 2010 WL 5676522 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 6, 2010 report and recommendation adopted, No. 10-CV-11879-DT, 2011 WL 333952 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 31, 2011) (denying sanctions in case of first impression)). See also Baker v. Alderman, 158 F.3d 516, 524 (11th Cir. 1998) (“[T]he purpose of Rule 11 is to deter frivolous lawsuits and not to deter novel legal arguments or cases of first impression.”) Contrary to this weight of authority, KSE’s motion threatens sanctions in what is plainly a case of first impression for the Court. C.R.S. § 6-1-718 was enacted in 2008 with the aim of providing consumers with an unfettered ability to resell their tickets in whatever manner suited them.
Filed September 18, 2013
Defendant, however, has not supported its motion with any evidence from which the Court can reasonably infer that Plaintiff did not have a belief fonned after a reasonably inquiry that his Complaint was well grouElded in fact. See, e.g., Baker v. Alderman, 158 F.3d 516, 524 (1 1th Cir. l 998) ('(t)he grant of summary judgment, in and of itself, does not mean that an action is frivolous or warrants the imposition of sanctions''l; f aborers L ocal 938 -Jt?/FJ/ Health dc Welfare Fr?z5,/ Fund v. B.R. Starnes Co. ofFlorida, 827 F.2d 1454, 1 458 (1 1th Cir.l 987) ('Rule 1 1 is intended to deter frivolous suits').
Filed August 20, 2012
Notwithstanding MOTIVATION’s improper actions, JTR does not oppose the dismissal of MOTIVATION’s claim, subject to JTR’s right to pursue sanctions against MOTIVATION for the assertion of a meritless claim and other bad faith misconduct in the course of this litigation. See Cooper & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. 110 S. Ct. 2447, 2455 (U.S. 1990)(District courts may enforce Rule 11 even after plaintiff has filed notice of dismissal); Baker v. Alderman, 158 F.3d 516, 523 (11 th Cir. 1198)(Rule 11 motions are collateral to an action and are not barred if filed after a dismissal order, or after an entry of judgment). WHEREFORE, JTR ENTERPRISES, LLC, requests this Honorable Court (i) grant MOTIVATION’s Motion to dismiss MOTIVATION’s Amended Verified Claim without prejudice to any emeralds or other things JTR may hereafter discover and bring before the Court for an adjudication of title and/or a salvage award, subject to JTR’s right to seek an award of its taxable costs, sanctions, including attorney’s fees, and any other and further relief the Court deems just and proper.
Filed December 10, 2010
Plaintiff asserts that an extension would provide “judicial economy and the reduction of unnecessary motion practice” by following a rule of “deciding Rule 11 motions at the end of the litigation.” Plaintiff relies on Baker v. Alderman, 158 F. 3d 516 (11th Cir. 1998) to support its position. Id.
Filed May 24, 2010
“Although sanctions are warranted when the claimant exhibits a deliberate indifference to obvious facts, they are not warranted when the claimant’s evidence is merely weak but appears sufficient, to support a claim under existing law.” Baker v. Alderman, 158 F.3d 516, 524 (11th Cir. 1998). In the case sub judice, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint sounding in the following seven counts: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (3) Misappropriation of Trade Secrets and Confidential Information; (4) Conversion; (5) Civil Conspiracy; (6) Injunctive Relief; and (7) Unjust Enrichment.