Also known as: Rule 11 · FRCP 11 · Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 · Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 · Rule 11 sanctions · FRCP Rule 11
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A federal procedural rule requiring every pleading, written motion, and other paper filed in federal court to be signed by at least one attorney of record. The signature certifies that the paper is not presented 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 identified as based on belief or lack of information. Violation after notice and opportunity to respond may result in sanctions against the attorney, law firm, or party responsible.
Rebecca Ross filed an answer on behalf of Riverfront Developments denying receipt of any warnings about faulty construction. She made the denial without checking project emails or texts that were in her client's possession and without labeling it as based on belief. After notice and a hearing, the court imposed sanctions on Ross and her firm to deter repetition of the conduct.
Roberto Reyes, counsel for Rising Sun Electronics, filed a notice of removal in federal court within thirty days of service. The notice contained a short statement of diversity jurisdiction and attached the complaint and summons but omitted one state-court order served on the defendant. The court examined whether the filing satisfied the signature and content requirements before deciding the remand motion.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Renata Russo uploaded an amended complaint on behalf of Royal Crest Hotels that lacked any signature block. Opposing counsel notified her of the omission. When she did not promptly correct it, the court struck the filing under the signature requirement.
Rina Rahman filed a motion to seal nearly all documents on behalf of Redline Automotive, stating in a recorded call that the motion would punish the opponent by forcing repeated re-drafts. The court considered whether the filing violated the certification against improper purpose.
Ronald Reed asserted a novel nationwide performance right in a complaint filed for Rhea Reynolds. The theory went far beyond established copyright and publicity doctrines without any plausible grounding in precedent. The court evaluated whether the contention was frivolous under the certification requirement.
Rebecca Ross pleaded a specific fifty-percent underreporting figure based only on social-media buzz and a blogger's estimates. She acknowledged that internal data would be needed to confirm the number. The court assessed whether the allegation violated the requirement of evidentiary support or proper identification as preliminary.
The attorney must conduct a reasonable inquiry into readily available records. A flat denial without review or without labeling it as based on belief or lack of information violates the certification requirement.
Supporting sources
After notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party responsible for a violation. A law firm is jointly responsible absent exceptional circumstances.
Supporting sources
No. An unsigned paper does not impose any obligation, and the court must strike it if the omission is not promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's attention.
Supporting sources
The notice must be signed pursuant to the rule, contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, and attach copies of all process, pleadings, and orders served on the defendant.
Supporting sources
…v. Hartmarx Corp. , 496 U. S. 384, 402 (1990) (district court better situated to make fact-dependent legal determinations in Rule 11 context). I do not believe that we can rely upon the Court of Appeals' review of the District Court record, for that review, and its ultimate conclusions, are infected by a legal error.…