Hall et al v. County of Whatcom (WCSO) et al

Filing 160

ORDER denying 146 Defendants' Motion for Sanctions; denying 151 Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time in which to respond is Denied as moot, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(MD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

JAMES HALL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10

v.

11
12

No. C09-1545RSL

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS

COUNTY OF WHATCOM, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on “Defendants Whatcom County’s and

15
16

Wrights’ Motion for Sanctions Under CR 11.” Dkt. # 146. At the urging of the Court,

17

plaintiffs dropped some (or possibly all) of their claims against Tara Wright at oral argument

18

on November 15, 2011. Three days later, defendants filed this motion seeking sanctions.

19

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for an extension of time in which to respond to the motion. Dkt.

20

# 151.

21
22

Defendants did not comply with the technical requirements of Rule 11.
Defendants claim that they sent a letter to plaintiffs’ counsel in March 2011 notifying counsel
“of the possibility of CR 11 sanctions with regard to their claims against Tara Wright in her

23
24
25
26
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS - 1

1

individual capacity.” Decl. of Randall J. Watts (Dkt. # 147 at ¶ 4).1 Because the “safe harbor”

2

requirements of Rule 11(c)(2) are mandatory, informal warnings threatening a motion for

3

sanctions are insufficient. Radcliffe v. Rainbow Constr. Co., 254 F.3d 772, 788-89 (9th Cir.

4

2001). There being no indication that the motion, as subsequently filed, was served on

5

plaintiffs at least 21 days before filing, defendants’ motion for Rule 11 sanctions (Dkt. # 147) is

6
7

DENIED. Plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time in which to respond (Dkt. # 151) is
DENIED as moot.

8
9

Dated this 13th day of December, 2011.

A

10

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

1

Despite his statement to the contrary, a copy of the letter was not appended to Mr. Watts’
declaration.

26
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS - 2