Also known as: FRCP 11 · Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 · Rule 11 sanctions · Rule 11 motion
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural rule requiring an attorney or unrepresented party to sign every pleading, motion, or other paper presented to a federal court and thereby certify that the filing is not for an improper purpose, that legal contentions are warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for change, and that factual contentions have evidentiary support or are likely to have such support after investigation.
Rosalind Reed filed an answer denying receipt of any warnings about faulty construction materials. She made the denial without checking project emails or texts in her client's possession and without labeling it as based on belief. After notice and opportunity to respond, the court determined the denial violated the certification requirements and imposed sanctions on Reed and her firm.
Rosa Ruiz, sued in state court, filed a document styled as a motion to transfer in federal court. The filing contained a brief jurisdictional statement but attached only the summons and one complaint, omitting later served orders from the consolidated action. The court held the filing defective because it was not a proper notice of removal signed under the rule and containing all required state-court papers.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ravi Reddy filed a complaint containing factual allegations he knew lacked evidentiary support. After the defendant moved for sanctions, Reddy voluntarily dismissed the action. The court retained jurisdiction to impose sanctions because the violation was complete upon filing the baseless pleading.
After notice and opportunity to respond, the court determined that counsel's unsupported factual denial violated Rule 11(b). The court issued its own show-cause order describing the specific conduct and required the attorney to explain why sanctions should not follow.
An associate filed a motion containing contentions known to lack evidentiary support. Absent exceptional circumstances, the court held the firm jointly responsible for the violation committed by its employee and imposed sanctions on both the associate and the firm.
Defendant served a sanctions motion describing the specific baseless allegations. Plaintiff withdrew the challenged pleading within twenty-one days after service, so the motion was never filed with the court and no sanctions were imposed.
The attorney must conduct a reasonable inquiry into readily available records. A flat denial without checking those records or qualifying the denial as based on belief or lack of information violates the certification requirements.
Supporting sources
No. An unsigned paper does not impose any obligation on the opposing party. The court must strike the paper if the omission is not promptly corrected after it is brought to the attorney's attention.
Supporting sources
The notice must be signed consistent with the rule, contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, and include copies of all process, pleadings, and orders served on the defendant in the state action.
Supporting sources
Yes. The violation is complete upon filing a baseless pleading, so the court retains jurisdiction to consider sanctions even after voluntary dismissal.
Supporting sources
A party has twenty-one days after service of the motion to withdraw or appropriately correct the challenged paper before the motion may be filed with the court.
Supporting sources
…colloquy between a federal district court and a defendant required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b) (formerly Rule 11(c)), which we have said approximates the due process requirements for a valid plea, see Libretti v. United States , 516 U. S. 29, 49–50 (1995), does not mention collateral consequences.…