This was a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case in which the Plaintiff sued three defendants. Ultimately, the defendants all obtained summary judgment.
One defendant filed a motion for Rule 11 sanctions. She argued that she had sold her interest in the company defendant and was not a proper defendant. She claimed that once the plaintiff was informed of that fact, he had a duty to drop her from the case.
The district court did not agree. First, it concluded that the party, Tauriac, did not meet the requirements of the Rule 11 safe harbor in that she failed to give 21 days notice before seeking sanctions. Second, the District Court concluded that the plaintiff had done a sufficient pre-filing investigation to warrant the inclusion of Tauriac in the complaint. The plaintiff had obtained documentation that appeared to contradict Tauriac’s claims. The court denied the sanctions motion.
The opinion is thoughtful and thorough and discusses all the factors to determine if sanctions were appropriate.
Source: Seamans v. HOFFMAN, SWARTZ AND ASSOCIATES, INC., Dist. Court, ND Illinois 2017 – Google Scholar
fedcivilprocedure 