This case was brought by pro se litigants against several banks and financial institutions to challenge a foreclosure sale. The plaintiffs filed three sanctions motions against Defendants’ counsel. The court noted that all three motions were procedurally defective because the plaintiffs did not comply with the Rule 11 safe harbor. Additionally, the motions were substantively meritless. The court declined to grant sanctions because plaintiffs were pro se litigants.
Edward X. Clinton, Jr.
via Hopson v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Dist. Court, SD Mississippi 2018 – Google Scholar
fedcivilprocedure 