Also known as: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 · FRCP 11 · Rule 11
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A federal rule requiring every attorney or unrepresented party to sign pleadings, motions, and other papers after conducting a reasonable inquiry. The signature certifies that the paper is not presented for an improper purpose, that legal contentions are warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for change, and that factual contentions and denials have or will likely have evidentiary support.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Patricia filed an answer for Nova Build denying receipt of any warnings from the structural engineer. She made the denial without checking project emails or texts and without labeling it as based on belief or lack of information. After notice and opportunity to respond, the court determined the denial violated the certification requirements and imposed sanctions on Patricia and her firm.
Valley Harvest filed a notice of removal attaching only the complaint. The notice omitted the summons that had been served and lacked the required signature under the rule. The court granted the motion to remand because the notice failed to satisfy the content and signing requirements.
Lopez filed a class action alleging a novel corporate-level contract formation theory. ShopMax moved for sanctions claiming the theory was frivolous. The court denied sanctions because the contention constituted a nonfrivolous argument for extending existing contract doctrine.
Roland pleaded that Delta Screen underreported view counts by exactly fifty percent based only on social-media buzz and a blogger's estimates. Delta Screen moved for sanctions. The court found a violation because the specific numerical allegation lacked evidentiary support and was not identified as likely to be confirmed by discovery.
Roland moved to seal nearly all filings after stating on a recorded call that the motion would punish the opposing party by forcing repeated re-drafts. The court found the motion violated the improper-purpose certification and imposed sanctions after notice.
Roland uploaded an amended complaint lacking any signature block or contact information. The opposing party moved to strike. The court struck the unsigned paper because the rule requires a signature and the omission was not promptly corrected.
The attorney must conduct a reasonable inquiry into the facts and law. The signature certifies that the paper is not for an improper purpose, legal contentions are warranted or nonfrivolous, and factual allegations have or will likely have evidentiary support.
After notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on the attorney, law firm, or party responsible. A law firm is jointly responsible absent exceptional circumstances.
…colloquy between a federal district court and a defendant required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b) (formerly Rule 11(c)), which we have said approximates the due process requirements for a valid plea, see Libretti v. United States , 516 U. S. 29, 49–50 (1995), does not mention collateral consequences.…
…v. Hartmarx Corp. , 496 U. S. 384, 402 (1990) (district court better situated to make fact-dependent legal determinations in Rule 11
…of this question. To comply with the suggestion of § 380a, this Court adopted Rule
…both fact and law. They moved for attorneys fees and costs under Fed.R.
…on appeal clearly lies with the appellant. Visco v. Universal Refuse Removal Company , 11 Ariz. App. 73, 462 P.2d 90 (1969); Rule 11(b), Ariz.R.
No. A sanctions motion must be made separately and must describe the specific conduct alleged to violate the rule. It must be served but not filed until twenty-one days after service to allow correction or withdrawal.
Yes. The court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why described conduct has not violated the rule.
The attorney may be sanctioned because factual contentions must have evidentiary support or be identified as likely to gain support after reasonable investigation. Suspicions alone without further inquiry violate the certification.
No. The rule permits legal contentions supported by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law. Sanctions are improper when the theory has a reasonable basis even if ultimately rejected.