From Shales v. General Chauffeurs, Sales Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 330, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 4237 (7th Cir. Feb. 27, 2009):
Banks's principal argument is that Rule 11 is not a pure fee-shifting statute, so ability to pay should be taken into account. This is true as far as it goes. "A sanction imposed under this rule must be lim ...
From Shales v. General Chauffeurs, Sales Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 330, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 4237 (7th Cir. Feb. 27, 2009):
Banks’s principal argument is that Rule 11 is not a pure fee-shifting statute, so ability to pay…