ArrivalStar S.A., et. al. v. Meitek Inc., et. al., 2-12-cv-01225 (CACD January 28, 2013, Order) (Selna, J.).
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Rule 11 Safe Harbor Requires Service of Motion and Supporting Memo and Exhibits
The court denied defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiffs and their counsel for failing to comply with the safe-harbor provision. “[Defendant] argues that it satisfied Rule 11’s ‘safe-harbor’ provision because it served the filing-ready Motion for Sanctions upon [plaintiffs]. But [defendant] interprets ‘filing-ready’ to include only the notice of motion, not 'the supporting memorandum or any exhibits.' Contrarily, the Court interprets ‘filing-ready’ to include every part of the motion that will be filed with the Court, including the notice of motion, the supporting memorandum, and any exhibits. The Court’s interpretation is supported not only by the plain meaning of the term, but also by the purpose of the safe-harbor provision, which ‘is . . . to give litigants an opportunity to remedy any alleged misconduct before sanctions are imposed.’”