Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
41. Should the court impose monetary sanctions?
The editor first moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Thereafter, the editor made a motion for sanctions claiming that the novelist's complaint was filed in bad faith because the legal contentions contained in the complaint could not be warranted by existing law. The novelist's attorney did not withdraw or appropriately correct the complaint for more than 21 days, and the editor then moved for sanctions. The court held that the novelist's complaint was made in bad faith.
A novelist wished to file suit against an editor for an alleged violation of copyright law. The novelist's attorney, a recent law school graduate, drafted and filed on behalf of the novelist. The complaint purported to state a claim for relief under copyright law but, unbeknownst to the attorney, did not state such a claim. The attorney did not recognize the defect, so she did not request an extension or modification of existing copyright law or articulate any theory that would have supported an extension or modification of existing copyright law.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
When the lawyer files a pleading, the lawyer thereby certifies that to the best of the lawyer's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
the pleading is not presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;the factual contentions have evidentiary support, or if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; ANDthe denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence, or if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.The court has the power to impose sanctions limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct against a party who presents a paper to the court in violation of the above requirements, either on the court's own initiative or on motion of the opposing party.
Under FRCP 11(c)(2), the party seeking sanctions must serve a separate motion on the other party, but may not file the motion if the challenged paper, claim, or defense is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after the service (called the «safe harbor» period).
When appropriate, sanctions may be imposed against parties, attorneys, or law firms, and may consist of non-monetary measures such as censuring the offending lawyer or striking the offending pleading.
Sanctions may also include monetary penalties, such as payment of expenses and attorneys' fees incurred because of the improper paper. There are limits on monetary sanctions that courts may impose, however. The court may not impose monetary sanctions on a represented party when the violation was that legal contentions in the pleadings were not warranted by existing law or supported by a nonfrivolous argument for expanding the law.
D is correct. FRCP 11(c) states «the sanction may include nonmonetary directives.» Further, under FRCP 11(c)(4) the court has the discretion to impose sanctions «limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct.»
Here, in imposing sanctions, the best exercise of the court's discretion here is to make certain that the attorney does not make the same mistake in the future. The goals of Rule 11 sanctions would best be served by admonishing the lawyer around diligent legal research prior to filing pleadings and requiring her to go through additional training on these skills.
A is incorrect. FRCP 11(c)(5)(A) states that monetary sanctions may not be imposed on a represented party when the legal contentions contained in the pleading or motion are not warranted by existing law or argument for a nonfrivolous expansion of the law. Here, the court may not, therefore, impose monetary sanctions on the novelist for his attorney's conduct.
B is incorrect. Although the court could choose to impose monetary sanctions on the novelist's attorney alone, it may not impose monetary sanctions on the novelist himself for the actions of his attorney, as explained above.
C is incorrect. Prohibiting the novelist from bringing a corrected copyright claim would be the most severe sanction available against the novelist, not the attorney who violated Rule 11. Under FRCP 12(c), this type of sanction would likely go beyond one that is «limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct.» The improper pleading was filed by the novelist's attorney, so punishing the novelist in this way would not deter this type of mistake in the future.