Opinion
Case No. 2:02-cv-94-FtM-29SPC
December 17, 2003
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Janet K. DeCosta, Esq.'s Motion to Tax Attorney's Fees Against Lee Hollander and the Law Offices of Hollander and Hanuka (Doc. # 124) filed on December 5, 2003. Attorney DeCosta moves this Court to Sanction Attorney Hollander pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(1)(A).
Rule 11 sanctions are only permitted if the objectionable court paper is filed in violation of the Rule. Sowan v. Travelers Ins. Co., 982 F.2d 1497, 1507 (11th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the Court's inquiry focuses only on the facts and the law known to the attorney at the time of the filing. Jones v. International Riding Helmets, LTD., 49 F.3d 692, 694-695 (11th Cir. 1995). The Court must avoid using hindsight and should only test Attorney Hollander's conduct by inquiring into what was reasonable for Attorney Hollander to believe at the time he submitted the Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions against Attorney DeCosta. Id. at 695. At the time Attorney Hollander filed his original Motion for Sanctions, it was reasonable, with facts he had, for Attorney Hollander to believe that Attorney DeCosta had misinformed the Court. Therefore, the Court does not believe that sanctions against Attorney Hollander are warranted under Rule 11.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Janet K. DeCosta, Esq.'s Motion to Tax Attorney's Fees Against Lee Hollander and the Law Offices of Hollander and Hanuka (Doc. # 124-1) is DENIED.