Also known as: Rule 11 · FRCP 11 · Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 · Rule 11 FRCP · FRCP Rule 11 · Rule 11 sanctions
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural rule that requires every attorney or unrepresented party presenting a pleading, motion, or other paper to certify after reasonable inquiry 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 have or will likely obtain evidentiary support. The rule authorizes courts to impose sanctions on violators after notice and opportunity to respond, with joint responsibility for law firms absent exceptional circumstances.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Rhea Reynolds, counsel for Nova Build, filed an answer denying receipt of any structural warnings from the engineer. She made the flat denial after accepting only her client's verbal assurance and without checking project emails or texts. The court found the denial lacked evidentiary support and was not labeled as based on belief or lack of information, so it imposed sanctions to deter repetition of the conduct.
Ricardo Rojas, counsel for Elm Teach, filed a notice of removal in federal court containing a short statement of federal-question grounds. He signed the notice after accepting only his client's verbal assurance of jurisdiction and without reviewing the complaint allegations or any supporting documents. The court found the certification violated Rule 11 because reasonable inquiry had not been made before signing.
Rosalind Reed, counsel for shareholders in a Disney board dispute, filed a complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty in approving an employment agreement. After the court dismissed the claims, she sought to amend without conducting further inquiry into the board's process. The court sanctioned the filing because the amended allegations lacked reasonable factual support under the certification requirements.
Ravi Reddy, counsel for Masson, filed a complaint alleging defamation based on a magazine article's portrayal of his statements. The filing rested solely on the client's recollection without reviewing interview transcripts or tapes. The court sanctioned the pleading because the factual contentions lacked evidentiary support and were not identified as likely to be confirmed by discovery.
Rule 11 requires the attorney to conduct a reasonable inquiry so that the denial is warranted on the evidence or, if the attorney cannot confirm its accuracy, to identify the denial specifically as based on belief or lack of information. A flat denial without review of available records violates the rule even if the client provided an assurance.
Supporting sources
…some of the "tools at hand" from which the pleader intends to derive the particularized facts necessary to comply with Chancery Rule 11(b)(3) and Chancery Rule 23.1. But many of the quotations from the media in the Complaint simply echo plaintiffs' conclusory allegations. Accordingly, they serve no purpose other than to…
…both fact and law. They moved for attorneys fees and costs under Fed.R.
…“insure adequate service and secure safety” to those who work on such lines and to “the public in general.” (Gen. Order No. 95,
A court denies sanctions when the legal contention is supported by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law. The rule protects good-faith efforts to develop doctrine even if the theory is ultimately rejected on the merits.
Supporting sources
Yes, but only if the attorney identifies the contentions as likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation. Allegations resting solely on suspicions without any basis for believing discovery will confirm them violate the certification requirement.
Supporting sources
A sanctions motion must be made separately from any other motion, must describe the specific conduct alleged to violate the rule, and must be served but not filed until 21 days after service to allow withdrawal or correction of the challenged paper.
Supporting sources
Yes, because the violation is complete upon filing a baseless pleading and the court retains jurisdiction to address collateral issues such as sanctions even after dismissal.
Supporting sources