Rare and Exceptional Case Does not Warrant Rule 11 Sanctions


This is a case where the third party defendants moved for sanctions, apparently before they obtained a dismissal of the complaint.  The court could have rejected the sanctions motion on that ground. Instead, the court rejected the motion on the ground that the case was “rare and exceptional” and did not merit sanctions. A brief quotation explains the ruling:

The Court cannot accept the Third Party Defendants’ invitation to accept they would prevail and obtain dismissal with prejudice. Even if Third Party Defendants did prevail, on this record, the Court cannot find the third party claims were sufficiently frivolous or brought for an improper purpose. See, e.g., Hochman Decl., Dkt. No. 85-1. The Court cannot find that this is the type of “rare and exceptional case” justifying the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions.

via EUROSESMILLAS, SA v. PLC DIAGNOSTICS INC., Dist. Court, ND California 2018 – Google Scholar

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s