Also known as: FRCP 11 · Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 · Rule 11 sanctions · Rule 11 motion
Written by attorneys — see sources 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.
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.
In May 1994 Paula Corbin Jones, a California resident who had worked at the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas against William Jefferson Clinton, then President of the United States, and Danny Ferguson, a former Arkansas State Police officer. The complaint alleged that on May 8, 1991, while Clinton was Governor of Arkansas and attending an official conference at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Ferguson persuaded Jones to leave the registration desk and visit Clinton in a business suite where he made unwanted sexual advances that she rejected. Jones further alleged that after she refused the advances her superiors at the Commission treated her in a hostile and rude manner and changed her duties in retaliation. After Clinton became President, Ferguson made defamatory statements to a reporter implying she had accepted the advances, while Clinton's authorized spokespersons publicly branded her a liar by denying the incident. The four-count complaint asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 plus state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation, seeking $75,000 in actual damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. Jurisdiction was predicated on federal-question and diversity grounds. With the exception of the defamation count, the alleged misconduct occurred before Clinton took office and was unrelated to any official presidential duties. Clinton promptly advised the District Court that he intended to file a motion to dismiss on grounds of Presidential immunity. He requested the court to defer all other pleadings and motions until after the immunity issue was resolved. Petitioner thereupon filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice and to toll any statutes of limitation until he is no longer President. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss, allowed discovery to proceed, but stayed the trial until the end of the presidency. Both parties appealed. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of dismissal on immunity grounds but reversed the stay of trial, holding that the District Court had abused its discretion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseAfter 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.…