McGowen et al v. Kroger District I

Filing 105

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' 93 Motion for Sanctions - Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (CCie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RHONDA McGOWAN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

No. 16-13216

v.

District Judge Terrence G. Berg
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

KROGER CO. MICHIGAN 709,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
On January 30, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11
[Doc. #93]. Plaintiffs state that “[i]n support of its motion, Plaintiffs rely on the facts and
law set forth more fully in the accompanying brief.” However, Plaintiffs did not file an
accompanying brief, so the Court has no idea what they claim as a basis for their request
for sanctions.
In addition, Plaintiffs did not comply with the “safe harbor” provision of Rule 11.
Rule 11(c)(2) sets forth a “safe harbor” provision that requires that a motion for sanctions
not be filed until 21 days after service. “A party seeking Rule 11 sanctions must satisfy
the procedural requirements of [Rule 11(c)(2)], commonly known as the ‘safe harbor’
provision. This is an ‘absolute requirement.’” Mabbitt v. Midwestern Audit Service, Inc.
2008 WL 1840620, *1 (E.D.Mich. 2008) (Edmunds, J.), citing Ridder v. City of
Springfield, 109 F.3d 288, 296 (6th Cir.1997).
Because Plaintiffs’ motion [Doc. #93] is both procedurally and substantively
deficient, it is DENIED.

-1-

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 12, 2018

s/R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify on September 12, 2018 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper
with the Clerk of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered
electronically. I hereby certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to non-registered ECF
participants on September 12, 2018.
s/Carolyn M. Ciesla
Case Manager for the
Honorable R. Steven Whalen

-2-