Issue: Under federal law in the Ninth Circuit, must a Rule 11 motion be denied when it is not timely brought?
| Area of Law: | Litigation & Procedure |
| Keywords: | Rule 11 motion denial; Safe harbor provision; Not timely |
| Jurisdiction: | Federal |
| Cited Cases: | 109 F.3d 288 |
| Cited Statutes: | Rule 11(c)(1)(A) |
| Date: | 02/01/2001 |
A Rule 11 motion may simply come too late. Following the adoption of that Rule’s “safe harbor” provisions in 1993, a Rule 11 motion challenging allegedly improper or offensive pleadings or other papers may not be brought after the court has already rejected, by summary judgment or otherwise, the allegedly offensive claim. Barber v. Miller, 146 F.3d 707, 710 (9th Cir. 1998). Defendants gave "up the opportunity to receive an award of Rule 11 sanctions in this case by waiting to file the motion until after the entry of summary judgment.” See Ridder v. City of Springfield, 109 F.3d 288, 297 (6th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 687, 139 L. Ed. 2d 634 (1998).
Since the adoption of the 1993 amendments to Rule 11, specifically the so-called “safe harbor” provisions, it is clear that a Rule 11 motion that is served or filed, as here, after summary judgment or other judicial rejection of a plaintiff’s allegedly offensive claims, must be denied because it comes too late. See Barber, 146 F.3d at 710-11; Ridder, 109 F.3d at 297. In Barber the Ninth Circuit explained the rationale for this result:
The purpose of the safe harbor, however, is to give the offending party the opportunity, within 21 days after service of the motion for sanctions, to withdraw the offending pleading and thereby […]
margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;tab-stops:-72.05pt -.5in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 310.5pt 5.0in 5.5in right 6.0in 6.5in left 7.0in 7.5in 8.0in 8.5in 9.0in 9.5in 10.0in 10.5in’>