Palmer v. Pneumo-Abex Corporation

Filing 56

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OR FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; VACATING HEARING. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 18, 2010. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. PNEUMO ABEX, LLC, et al., Defendants / Before the Court is the "Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions, or in the Alternative for Issuance [of] Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions for Defense Counsel's Violation of Rule 11 in Relation to Its Improper Removal," filed February 26, 2010 by plaintiffs Ronald and Carol Palmer. Defendant Pneumo Abex LLC ("Abex") has filed opposition, to which plaintiffs have replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for determination on the parties' respective written submissions, VACATES the hearing scheduled for March 19, 2010, and rules as follows. To the extent the motion seeks an award of sanctions under Rule 11, the motion is procedurally deficient, for the reason that plaintiffs did not comply with the requirement that they wait to file the motion until after twenty-one days had elapsed following the date on RONALD PALMER and CAROL PALMER, Plaintiffs, No. C-10-0712 MMC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OR FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; VACATING HEARING United States District Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 which the motion was served on defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2).1 To the extent the motion requests that the Court, on its own motion, direct Abex to show cause why it should not be sanctioned under Rule 11, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3), the Court declines to issue such an order, for the reason that it does not appear from the record before the Court that the notice of removal was filed for an improper purpose, was frivolous, or that the statements therein lacked any evidentiary support, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Accordingly, the motion is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 18, 2010 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge In their reply, plaintiffs argue they should be relieved from the requirement set forth in Rule 11(c)(2), for the asserted reason that neither the Clerk of the Court nor this Court rescheduled the hearing on the motion for sanctions to a later date. The Court disagrees. The date on which the motion for sanctions is scheduled for hearing is irrelevant to the issue of whether, before it was filed, it had been served on defendants at least twenty-one days earlier. 2 1

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?