New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Letters Threatening Rule 11 Sanctions Do Not Violate Order Staying All Proceedings

Download PDF

The lawsuit in Nilssen v. General Electric Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94448 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 12, 2008), was stayed at the plaintiff’s request pending the appeal of another action deciding that the plaintiff’s patents were unenforceable.

Plaintiffs also take issue with four letters that GE sent to Plaintiffs' counsel, either threatening to file a motion for sanctions under Rule 11, or requesting that Plaintiffs dismiss the case in light of the various rulings by the Federal Circuit. Plaintiffs offer no reasons as to why these letters violate the stay, except to say that GE did not seek leave of Court to send the letters to Plaintiffs. Yet, arguably, seeking leave would only trigger another round of briefing in this contentious, protracted litigation. Either way, the Court disagrees with Plaintiffs.

The letters sent in light of the Federal Circuit's decisions do not constitute violations of the stay order, despite Plaintiffs' contention. Indeed, the stay order was not so far-reaching so as to preclude all communications between the parties' counsel. Such an order would be unreasonable, especially since the parties could potentially settle the matter as the Federal Circuit issued its decisions. Notwithstanding a stay of the case, the Court should only expect that the parties keep each other abreast of the case's procedural posture and, in turn, attempt to resolve any disputes as the litigation progresses. GE's letters served only to further these expectations. As a result, they did not violate the stay.

As to the "Rule 11 Letter," the Court finds that GE was within its rights when it threatened the Plaintiffs with Rule 11 sanctions. Rule 11 provides relief from unwarranted pleadings. Given Judge Darrah's previous ruling and the Federal Circuit's subsequent decisions on that ruling, it is plausible that GE perceived Plaintiffs' lawsuit in this Court as unwarranted. Moreover, it is significant that GE did not file the motion for sanctions, GE simply threatened to file it, which gave Plaintiffs an opportunity to resolve the issue without the Court's intervention. GE's conduct under the circumstances certainly conformed with Rule 11, and, as such, the Rule 11 letter did not violate the stay.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

FRAP 38 Sanctions: An Appeal May Not Be “Wholly Without Merit” — And Therefore May Not Be Sanctionable — Even If Several of Appellant’s Arguments Are Frivolous; Soundness of Central Arguments May Dominate

Standing: An “Identifiable Trifle” Suffices — PSLRA/Rule 11: District Court Must Make Findings As to Compliance with Rule 11 Whether or Not Asked — Filing Securities Lawsuit to Obtain Immaterial Disclosures Presumptively Violative of Rule 11

FRAP 38 Sanctions for Frivolous Claims of Judicial Bias, Citing Non-Existent Cases/Sources, Inventing Quotes from Real Ones, And Exhibiting Inflammatory and Antagonistic Tone — Recusal: “Adverse Rulings Are Not Evidence of Bias” (Good Quote) — Critical Judicial Remarks Ordinarily Do Not Support A Claim of Bias — Circuit-Wide Filing Bar Until $5,000 Fine Paid

Court’s Inherent Power to Police the Conduct of Litigants and Attorneys Extends to Persons Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law Before Them

(1) Inherent Power Sanctions — Duty to Correct or Withdraw — Strategic Silence As Bad Faith — Failure to Advise Court of Absence of Diversity Jurisdiction for 15 Months for Strategic Reasons, Only “Pull[ing] Out The Diversity-Destroying Card” After Losing = “A Textbook Example of Bad Faith” — (2) Under Goodyear, The Court’s Fundamental Job Is to Decide Whether Fees Would Have Been Incurred Absent the Sanctioned Conduct — (3) Appellate Review: While Sanctions Orders Are Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion, A Finding of Bad Faith Is Reviewed for Clear Error — (4) When There Are Two Permissible Views of The Evidence, The Factfinder’s Choice Between Them Cannot Be Clearly Erroneous — (5) “A District Court Is Not Required To Consider Irrelevant Evidence” — (Good Quotes)

Criminal Spoliation Can Be A Due Process Violation — Defendant Must Show That (1) The Evidence Had Exculpatory Value Before It Was Destroyed, (2) Defendant Is Unable to Obtain Comparable Evidence by Reasonable Means, and (3) Bad Faith Failure to Preserve

1) Rule 11 Sanctions: “No First Amendment Exception to a Rule 11 Violation” — “[T]he First Amendment Covers Novel, Nonfrivolous Arguments, But Many Frivolous Arguments Are Also Novel” (Good Quotes) — Frivolous To Continue To Make Rejected Novel Arguments; (2) FRAP 38 Sanctions: District Court In Best Position to Set Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees and Costs

3 Prerequisites for Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions in Second Circuit: (1) Bad Faith, (2) Conduct That Is Entirely Without Color [Thus, An Ill-Motivated Colorable Position Appears to Be Protected in the Second Circuit], and (3) Improper Purpose— “To Gain A Strategic Advantage” Is An Improper Purpose — Due Process Satisfied by Opponent’s Motion and Multiple Court Conferences, After Which Target Was Allowed to Submit Additional Letters

Inherent Power Sanctions — Untimeliness as Laches — Laches Properly Applied to Deny Sanctions Motion — Note Waived Defenses to Laches

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Substantial Justification or Harmless Error (Ninth Circuit Factors) — Erie: When State Supreme Court Has Not Squarely Addressed an Issue, Circuit Must Predict How It Would Rule, Using Intermediate Appellate Decisions, Decisions from Other Jurisdictions, Statutes, Treatises And Restatements for Guidance

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice