Index No.: 11-cv-00433 (LAK) ECF CASE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that this day, I electronically filed MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO MYSPACE, INC.’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS UNDER RULE 11 with the Clerk of Court in the United States District Court, for the Southern District of New York, using the CM/ECF system, which will automatically send email notification of such filing to all attorneys of record.

Document132 Filed09/05/13 Page20 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 16 - INVESTOR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS ATTESTATION UNDER LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3) I, Kenneth G. Hausman, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this Investor Defendants’ Notice Of Motion And Motion For Sanctions Under Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) And 11(c)(2) And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof.

By making these unfounded allegations and claims, sanctions are warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11, at least to the extent of all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the necessity of Defendant MEK Chemical in defending against the unfounded allegations made in Paragraph 5 of Honeywell’s Complaint. Case 2:16-cv-09322-SDW-LDW Document 9-18 Filed 01/24/17 Page 13 of 14 PageID: 292 9 5994917.1 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant MEK Chemical respectfully moves the Court to sanction Plaintiff, Honeywell International Inc., its attorneys Bruce J. Rose, Scott B. Pleune, Tasneem A. Dharamsi and the law firm Alston and Bird LLP, for violations of Rule 11(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, committed by Honeywell International Inc. and its attorneys.

By making these unfounded allegations and claims, sanctions are warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11, at least to the extent of all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the necessity of Defendant MEK Chemical in defending against the unfounded allegations made in Paragraph 5 of Honeywell’s Complaint. Case 2:16-cv-09322-SDW-LDW Document 8-18 Filed 01/23/17 Page 13 of 14 PageID: 185 9 5994917.1 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant MEK Chemical respectfully moves the Court to sanction Plaintiff, Honeywell International Inc., its attorneys Bruce J. Rose, Scott B. Pleune, Tasneem A. Dharamsi and the law firm Alston and Bird LLP, for violations of Rule 11(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, committed by Honeywell International Inc. and its attorneys.

Case3:06-cv-02559-SI Document68 Filed09/25/06 Page31 of 32 26 KYPHON INC.’ S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 11 Civil Action No. C06-02559 SI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I certify that, on September 1, 2006, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c), I caused a copy of Kyphon’ s Rule 11 motion and supporting documents by U.S. Mail or by electronic mail (as indicated) on the individuals listed in the table below: • Kyphon Inc.’ s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 • Declaration of William R. Woodford In Support of Kyphon Inc.’ s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 • Declaration of Arthur E. Ferdinand In Support of Kyphon Inc.’ s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 Sean DeBruine (sdebruine@akingump.com) Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone: (650) 838-2000 Facsimile: (650) 838-2001 Via U.S. Mail & Electronic Mail Steven M. Zager (szager@akingump.com) Michael Simons (msimons@akingump.com) Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. 1111 Louisiana Street, 44th Floor Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 220-5800 Facsimile: (713) 236-0822 Via Electronic Mail Only Attorneys for Plaintiffs MEDTRONIC, INC., MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC., MEDTRONIC USA, INC., MEDTRONIC VASCULAR GALWAY, LTD., MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK, INC., & SDGI HOLDINGS, INC. I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct.

Accordingly, the Motion to Remand was sanctionable not only because it asserted false facts, but because it asserted frivolous legal arguments. See 16 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 107.41[4][b] (2012) ("Under Rule 11, a federal court may . .. sanction a party who makes a frivolous motion for remand."); FED. R. Civ. P.11(b)(2) (legal contentions must be "warranted by existing law"). 18 Case 2:11-cv-05413-DRH-ARL Document 37 Filed 08/14/12 Page 23 of 24 PageID #: 565 Response Letter, reflects complete disregard for this Court's and the Defendants' resources.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, William J. Robinson, an attorney, hereby certify that on June 24, 2013, I caused the foregoing (UNREDACTED) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS UNDER RULE 11, along with supporting Declaration and Exhibits, to be filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send an electronic copy of the foregoing to counsel of record and constitutes service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(D) pursuant to Local Rule 5.9 of the Northern District of Illinois. /s/ William J. Robinson William J. Robinson

Defendants have not shown that transfer is in the interests of justice or that any attorney would bring this case here. Instead, the unique circumstances of this District’s law would subject any attorney who brought this case to sanctions under Rule 11 and the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, and subject the attorney to malpractice. Consequently, this is not a case that could be brought in this District and the transfer was improper because it did not meet § 1404(a)’s criteria. Accordingly, the case should be transferred back to the Northern District of Florida.

5. The Court makes no finding as to whether sanctions are appropriate under FRCP 11. 6.

Rule 11 “emphasizes the duty of candor by subjecting litigants to potential sanctions for insisting upon a position after it is no longer tenable.” FRCP 11 cmt. re: 1993 amt.