The Rule 11 safe harbor provision requires a party seeking sanctions to file a separate motion for sanctions. Here, the party seeking sanctions combined the request for sanctions with a motion to dismiss. Result: sanctions denied. In Hison v. Lloyd, No. 22-10943 (E.D. Mich. 2023), the court ruled as follows:

“The Court denies Defendants’ request for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 because Defendants failed to strictly comply with Rule 11’s “safe-harbor provision” which states as follows:

A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2) (emphasis added). Thus, Rule 11 expressly requires that a “motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). Here, however, Defendants combined their motion seeking Rule 11 sanctions with their Motion to Dismiss. As such, Defendants failed to strictly comply with Rule 11’s safe-harbor provision and that failure “precludes imposing sanctions on [Defendant]’s motion.” Penn, LLC v. Prosper Business Dev. Corp.,773 F.3d 764,767 (6th Cir. 2014).”

Comment: failing to follow the rule gives the district court an easy way to avoid spending time on a sanctions motion.