This is an intellectual property dispute, where the defendant answered the complaint alleging trademark infringement and then moved for Rule 11 sanctions. The case caption is FCOA, LLC v. Foremost Title and Escrow Services, LLC,  Case No. 17-Civ-23971-WILLIAMS/TORRES.  United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

Plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s use of the term “Foremost” infringed Plaintiff’s trademarks and other intellectual property rights.

Defendant did not file a dispositive motion. Instead, it filed a Rule 11 motion. Defendant argued that the lawsuit was frivolous, given that the two companies were in different lines of business and there was no likelihood of confusion.

The court denied the Rule 11 motion on two grounds. First, it noted that the use of Rule 11 was improper because Rule 11 is not designed to serve as a dispositive motion. The court explained:

Defendant’s motion is unpersuasive for at least two independent reasons. First, the motion represents an improper attempt to convert a disagreement over the factual allegations and legal arguments in Plaintiff’s complaint into a sanctions dispute. Defendant’s motion is merely an attempt to seek disposition on the merits of this case via Rule 11. Yet, a Rule 11 motion is not an avenue to seek judgment on the merits of a case. Instead, its purpose is to determine whether an attorney has abused the judicial process. See Bigford v. BESM, Inc., 2012 WL 12886184, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2012) (“`Rule 11 should not be used to raise issues as to the legal sufficiency of a claim or defense that more appropriately can be disposed of by a motion to dismiss, a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a motion for summary judgment, or a trial on the merits.'”) (quoting In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation, 244 F.R.D. 70, 74 (D. Me. 2007) (denying Rule 11 motion without prejudice to its renewal “if and when [Defendant] obtains summary judgment”) (citations omitted)); see also Safe-Strap Co., Inc. v. Koala Corp., 270 F. Supp. 2d 407, 417-21 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (discussing that Rule 11 sanctions are not a substitute for motions for summary judgment).

As the plain language of Rule 11 indicates, “an attorney . . . certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances” that a court document “is not being presented for an improper purpose”, “the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law,” and the “factual contentions have evidentiary support. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 11(b). Instead of relying on a Rule 11 motion to dispose of this case, Defendant should have filed a dispositive motion — such as a motion to dismiss — rather than answering Plaintiff’s complaint. Because Defendant relies on the wrong type of motion for the relief sought, Defendant’s motion must be DENIED.

The second reason for the denial was that the motion was premature. Again the explanation:

Second, Defendant’s motion must be denied because it is premature at this stage of the litigation. As the Eleventh Circuit has found, Rule 11 sanctions are ordinarily not determined until the end of a case:

Although the timing of sanctions rests in the discretion of the trial judge, it is anticipated that in the case of pleadings the sanctions issue under Rule 11 normally will be determined at the end of the litigation, and in the case of motions at the time when the motion is decided or shortly thereafter.Donaldson v. Clark, 819 F.2d 1551, 1555 (11th Cir. 1987) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The Eleventh Circuit’s position is consistent with the Rules Advisory Committee which “anticipated that in the case of pleadings the sanctions issue under Rule 11 normally will be determined at the end of the litigation. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (Advisory Committee Notes, 1983 Amendment); see also Lichtenstein v. Consolidated Serv. Group, Inc., 173 F.3d 17, 23 (1st Cir. 1999)(

In other words, if the Defendant had filed and won a summary judgment motion, it would be able to seek sanctions. Using Rule 11 was improper as the case had not been decided.

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16660803745935797275&hl=en&lr=lang_en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1&oi=scholaralrt

David Novoselsky was sanctioned in the sum of $100,000 in the Circuit Court of Cook County for actions related to a case he was handling. For some reason, Novoselsky then filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to challenge the sanctions award.

His lawsuit was dismissed and the District Court awarded further sanctions for the filing of a frivolous lawsuit.

The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine generally prohibits federal courts from reviewing State Court judgments.

The district court also awarded sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. §1927.

The court first ruled that the Rule 11 letter sent to Novoselsky constituted “substantial compliance” with the safe harbor requirement in Rule 11. That usually requires the moving party to serve an actual draft motion for sanctions on the other party. The letter was deemed sufficient in this case.

The district court then found that Novoselsky’s arguments for jurisdiction were frivolous:

The Court agrees that these arguments were frivolous. It will address each in turn. First, and easiest, is Novoselsky’s claim that subject-matter jurisdiction could be premised on the Declaratory Judgment Act. It cannot. Rueth v. U.S. E.P.A., 13 F.3d 227, 231 (7th Cir. 1993). There is no ambiguity in the case law on this point; in any event, Novoselsky has apprised the Court of none. He should have known that this was an untenable argument.

Second, Novoselsky contended that the amount in controversy was satisfied as to Stevens because Judge Propes’s sanctions order “requires not only the payment of the face amount of $75,000 but interest accruing” on that sum. (Docket #23 at 5). However, the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, excludes interest. That statute requires that “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In her order, Judge Propes awarded Cushing the sum of $25,000 and Stevens $75,000. Neither meets the amount-in-controversy requirement standing alone. Anthony v. Sec. Pac. Finan. Servs., Inc., 75 F.3d 311, 315 n.1 (7th Cir. 1996). Judge Propes’ order that interest accrue on the amounts does not change things, since that interest is incidental, arising only by virtue of delay in payment, and is not itself a basis for the present suit. See Principal Mut. Life. Ins. Co v. Juntunen, 838 F.2d 942, 943 (7th Cir. 1988); 14AA Charles Alan Wright et al., Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 3712 (2011). Whatever post-judgment interest has accrued on these awards cannot be considered.

Moreover, the two amounts cannot be aggregated in order to cross the jurisdictional threshold; that is permitted “only if the defendants are jointly liable; however, if the defendants are severally liable, plaintiff must satisfy the amount in controversy requirement against each individual defendant.” LM Ins. Corp. v. Spaulding Enters. Inc., 533 F.3d 542, 548 (7th Cir. 2008). Novoselsky did not credibly contend that payment to Stevens would affect his obligation to Cushing, or vice versa, other than to baldly state that Judge Propes awarded them as a “unitary sum.” (Docket #23 at 6); Batson v. Live Nation Entm’t, Inc., 746 F.3d 827, 833 (7th Cir. 2014) (finding an argument “forfeited because it was perfunctory and underdeveloped”). A plain reading of her order reveals that the two awards are distinct despite being issued at the same time. Thus, this argument too was wholly meritless.^[6]

Third, and finally, is Novoselsky’s allegation that personal jurisdiction existed over Movants. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects a defendant from being haled into court in a state where it has no meaningful connections. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 464 (1985). Due process requires that for personal jurisdiction to exist over a nonconsenting, out-of-state defendant, the defendant must have “certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'” Int’l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Office of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)).

However, for specific personal jurisdiction—the only type arguably relevant in this case—mere minimum contacts are not enough. uBID, Inc. v. GoDaddy Grp., Inc.,623 F.3d 421, 429 (7th Cir. 2010). It is also important that the plaintiff’s claims arise from or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum State. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984); Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 317-18. Specific personal jurisdiction exists only where the defendant’s contacts with the forum state “directly relate to the challenged conduct or transaction.” Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693, 702 (7th Cir. 2010).

The sole allegation connecting Movants with the State of Wisconsin was their decision to preserve Judge Propes’ sanctions award by filing proofs of claim and an adversary complaint for nondischargeability in Novoselsky’s ongoing bankruptcy proceedings in this district. See (Docket #1 ¶ 7) (“[T]he dispute over the sum in controversy in this complaint arises from claims brought against Plaintiff by Defendants seeking relief against Plaintiff in the Courts of the Eastern District of Wisconsin.”). Those actions have nothing at all to do with Novoselsky’s claims in this case.

As the allegations of the complaint itself make clear, this case rests entirely on the parties’ interactions in Illinois. Novoselsky engaged in sanctionable conduct there, Judge Propes’ sanctions award was issued there, and the parties disputed the legality and interpretation of the sanctions award there. Id. ¶¶ 8-11. Indeed, even the several other cases that Novoselsky thought had some bearing on the sanctions award were all either Illinois state or federal cases. See id. ¶¶ 12-28. Although not relevant to the propriety of personal jurisdiction over Movants, it is worth noting as well that the breach-of-contract claim against the Estate was likewise based solely in agreements and conduct that occurred in Illinois. See id.¶¶ 29-33. Thus, while it is true that Movants sought to reap their sanctions award from Novoselsky’s bankruptcy estate, his claims regarding the sanctions award have no connection whatsoever to this State. Personal jurisdiction over Movants was not plausible in this case. See Burger King, 471 U.S. at 474-75 (a defendant must have sufficient contacts with the forum, related to the suit at bar, that it “should reasonably anticipate being haled into court [in the forum State]” on that suit).

Novoselsky’s opposition to Movants’ motion to dismiss did not help matters. It was scattered, incoherent, and quite clearly the product of no meaningful legal research. For instance, without any citation to authority, Novoselsky maintained that the Declaratory Judgment Act “on its face does provide for jurisdiction.” (Docket #23 at 5). This is simply not true.

The brief also fell well short on the matter of personal jurisdiction. Novoselsky stressed that Movants tried to obtain sanctions despite—for reasons he did not cogently explain—the need for those sanctions to be paid to the Estate. Id. at 8-9. This, he reasoned, represented Movants’ affirmative choice to enter Wisconsin and fight Novoselsky here over the sanctions award. See id. But here again, his brief is devoid of appeal to any authority other than, apparently, his own intellect.

…

Litigants of all kinds—and perhaps especially lawyer-litigants— should be expected to conduct reasonably careful research in finding that jurisdictional premises for suit are satisfied. Novoselsky did not do so, and that failure is worthy of sanctions. Movants’ cited cases support this view. First, in International Shipping Co., S.A. v. Hydra Offshore, Inc., 875 F.2d 388, 393 (2d Cir. 1989), plaintiff’s counsel was sanctioned for filing a complaint that on its face ran afoul of the complete diversity requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In particular, he had named aliens on both sides of the dispute, thereby clearly and unequivocally destroying diversity. Id. at 391. The jurisdictional defect was unmistakable to a reasonably prudent lawyer. Id.

Even more apt is a comparison to a prior instance in which a federal court meted out sanctions against Novoselsky. In MB Financial, N.A. v. Stevens, 678 F.3d 497, 498 (7th Cir. 2012), the Seventh Circuit affirmed a sanctions award against Novoselsky for frivolously removing an Illinois state case to federal court. The problems with removal were manifold— Novoselsky was not a party in the state case, much less a defendant; he did not secure any of the defendants’ consent to remove; removal was not proper because the defendants were all Illinois citizens; and the time for removal had long since expired. Id. at 498-99.

Here, as in numerous prior cases, Novoselsky offered outlandish jurisdictional claims backed up by uninformed, spurious arguments. The problems in this case would be plain to any lawyer of reasonable ability after consultation with pertinent authorities. Novoselsky apparently eschewed those authorities in favor of his own beliefs about what the law is. Consequently, the Court finds that Novoselsky’s jurisdictional contentions in this case were frivolous, violated Rule 11(b)(2), and are deserving of an appropriate sanction.^[7]

In sum, the court awarded sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees, but the left the specific amount of those fees for a further hearing.

via NOVOSELSKY v. ZVUNCA, Dist. Court, ED Wisconsin 2017 – Google Scholar

This case discusses a Rule 11 issue in the context of Bankruptcy Rule 9011. Plaintiff brought an adversary action against Discover Bank and its lawyer, Stephen Bruce, alleging that they violated the automatic stay by maintaining a garnishment over certain funds. The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, but their motion was denied. They then answered and served discovery requests. Eventually, the Defendants obtained summary judgment. At the conclusion of the case the Defendants moved for sanctions under Rule 9011. The court’s explanation:

The Sanction Motion was filed by Bruce on August 11, 2017, eighteen-and-a-half (18 ½) months after the filing of the Complaint, seventeen (17) months after the first safe harbor letter, sixteen (16) months after filing the Motion to Dismiss, nine (9) months after the second safe Harbor letter and the filing of the Motion for Summary Judgment and four-and-a-half (4 ½) months after the entry of the judgment in Bruce’s favor. If Bruce truly believed that the Law Firm’s conduct was so abusive and vexatious to warrant service of the safe harbor letters, and this Court has no reason to believe that Bruce wasn’t sincere in that belief, he should have pursued that motion by filing it shortly after the expiration of the twenty-one (21) day safe harbor in either February and/or November 2016. Instead, Bruce elected to wait and spend additional time and money in the discovery process and summary judgment process. The Court doesn’t know the reason for the delay, and the pleadings and oral argument did not enlighten the Court. It may have been because Bruce felt confident of the outcome and wanted to establish a precedent rather than cutting the litigation off at an early stage. “Suffice it to say that [Discover and Bruce] would be better served by reexamining their own litigation tactics rather than condemning plaintiff’s counsel for her litigation tactics.” Thompson v. United Transportation Union, 167 F.Supp.2d at 1260. The Court finds that Bruce’s Motion was not timely filed and can be denied on that basis alone, so is not necessary for the Court to decide the sanction motion on its merits. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Stephen L. Bruce Esq.’s Motion for Sanctions [Doc 90] is hereby DENIED.

In Re Waldrop

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

The Third Circuit, in an unpublished nonprecedential opinion, has held that the district court is required to resolve a sanctions motion filed while a case was pending. It must do so even though the underlying case was dismissed. In this particular case, the district court held that the sanctions motion was “moot” after it granted summary judgment. The Third Circuit disagreed:

We hold that the District Court’s refusal to reach the merits of the Rule 11 motion was in error. A district court “must resolve any issues about imposition of sanctions,” including Rule 11 sanctions, “prior to, or contemporaneously with, entering final judgment.” Gary, 517 F.3d at 202. This obligation to resolve “collateral issues” is not mooted “after an action is no longer pending,” Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 137-38 (1992) (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 395 (1990)), for a district court retains jurisdiction to impose Rule 11 sanctions even when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim giving rise to the sanctionable conduct, Lazorko v. Pa. Hosp., 237 F.3d 242, 247 (3d Cir. 2000). Here, therefore, the final judgment on the Brice’s claims against Bauer did not moot Bauer’s Rule 11 motion, and the District Court erred by declining to decide that motion on its merits.

Because we do not ordinarily consider issues not passed upon below, Goldenstein v. Repossessors Inc., 815 F.3d 142, 149 (3d Cir. 2016), and because “motions under Rule 11 must be decided in the first instance by the trial court absent extraordinary circumstances,” Gary, 517 F.3d at 202-03, we will not consider the parties’ arguments on the merits of Bauer’s Rule 11 motion and we will remand for the District Court to address the merits of Bauer’s Rule 11 motion in the first instance. While the Brices object that further proceedings in the District Court may duplicate a parallel sanctions determination in state court under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1023.2, we are persuaded that the proceedings will address—and may impose different sanctions for—different alleged misconduct. That is, the District Court’s Rule 11 determination will address whether the Brices’ earlier filings in federal court warrant sanctions, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, while any state court determination under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1023.2 will address whether the Brices’ subsequent filings in state court warrant sanctions, see Robinson v. State Emps.’ Ret. Bd., No. 1136 C.D. 2014, 2015 WL 5314660, at *5 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Mar. 10, 2015). Thus, we perceive no judicial economy concerns arising from the two sanctions determinations proceeding concurrently.

Source: Brice v. Bauer, Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2017 – Google Scholar

The plaintiff sued the Teamsters for failing to grant him lifetime retirement benefits and health benefits. The plaintiff, an African American, fell six days short of the requirement for benefits.

The Teamsters contended that he did not have enough service to meet the requirement for a retirement benefit. The court agreed with the Teamsters and dismissed the lawsuit, but declined to sanction.  The court found the complaint untimely and dismissed the lawsuit.

Sanctions were denied because the complaint was not “so far from plausible” to warrant sanctions.

Source: Perry v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia 2017 – Google Scholar