See Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 11, 1993 Amendment (noting that “If, during [the 21-day] period, the alleged violation is corrected, as by withdrawing (whether formally or informally) some allegation or contention, the motion should not be filed with the court.”). Novoselsky v. Zvunca, 324 F.R.D. 197, 203 (E.D. Wis. 2017), a case cited by the city, does not hold differently. Accordingly, absent any authority from the city supporting its contention that only a formal withdrawal suffices, the court concludes that Adams's informal notice was sufficient to constitute an “appropriate correction” under the rule.
It imposes a set of duties and “provides for an appropriate sanction to be imposed if those duties are violated.” Novoselsky v. Zvunca, 324 F.R.D. 197, 202 (E.D. Wis. 2017). “Sanctions will be imposed if counsel files a complaint with improper motives or without adequate investigation.” Brunt v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, 284 F.3d 715, 721 (7th Cir. 2002)
Filing a lawsuit against an out-of-state defendant with no plausible good faith justification for the assertion of personal jurisdiction or venue is sanctionable conduct. See, e.g.,Boyer v. BNSF Ry. Co. , 824 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding that attorney's decision to file negligence action in Arkansas state court, despite nothing tying lawsuit to Arkansas, was sanctionable); Levine v. FDIC, 2 F.3d 476, 478 (2d Cir. 1993) (imposition of sanctions proper given that plaintiff's assertion of personal jurisdiction over defendant was without factual basis); Novoselsky v. Zvunca , 324 F.R.D. 197, 206 (E.D. Wis. 2017) (finding a Rule 11 sanction award appropriate in part because "personal jurisdiction over [defendants] was not plausible in this case"). My colleague, Judge William J. Martinez, recently issued such a sanction, awarding attorneys’ fees under the Court's inherent power after a case had been voluntarily dismissed.
Thus, "a safe-harbor letter only authorizes a party to seek sanctions based on the grounds set forth in the letter." Novoselsky v. Zvunca, 324 F.R.D. 197, 204 (E.D. Wis. 2017). Here, though, Rush did not mention subsection (b)(1), delay, or the needless increase in litigation costs in its November 18 safe harbor letter.
It imposes a set of duties and "provides for an appropriate sanction to be imposed if those duties are violated." Novoselsky v. Zvunca, 324 F.R.D. 197, 202 (E.D. Wis. 2017). Sanctions will be imposed "if counsel files a complaint with improper motives or without adequate investigation."
It imposes a set of duties and "provides for an appropriate sanction to be imposed if those duties are violated." Novoselsky v. Zvunca, 324 F.R.D. 197, 202 (E.D. Wis. 2017). Sanctions will be imposed "if counsel files a complaint with improper motives or without adequate investigation."
"Toward that end, the Rule imposes an objective standard of reasonableness on a party's or lawyer's action." Novoselsky v. Zvunca, 324 F.R.D. 197, 202 (E.D. Wis. 2017) (citing N. Ill. Telecom, Inc., 850 F.3d at 885). In this case, defendants assert that sanctions are necessary because Nayak continues to repeat the same arguments even after multiple courts reject them.