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

Rule 11 Does Not Confer a Cause of Action — Successive Complaints Stating Previously-Rejected Legal Theories = Harassment

Download PDF

From Corrigan v. Pflanz, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5564 (9th Cir. Mar. 8, 2011):

In these consolidated appeals, John L. Corrigan appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging that defendants abused Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 in two prior actions. ***

The district court properly dismissed Corrigan's claim concerning defendants' failure to satisfy Rule 11's safe harbor provision in his 2003 action. See Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 680 (9th Cir. 2005) ("The appropriate remedy for . . . failure to satisfy safe harbor is a denial of [the] request for Rule 11 sanctions . . . ."). Further, Corrigan's claims alleging Rule 11 abuses were barred under the doctrine of res judicata because he could have raised them in prior actions. See Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) ("Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prohibits lawsuits on any claims that were raised or could have been raised in a prior action." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). ***

The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendants Hille's and Scudder's motion for Rule 11 sanctions because Corrigan's filing of successive complaints based on previously-rejected propositions of law constituted harassment.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Sanctions Enforcement and Appealability: Failure to Pay Rule 37 Sanctions and Otherwise Comply with Discovery Orders Leads to Dismissal under Rule 41(b) — Second Circuit Factors for Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with Court Orders — Belated, Partial Compliance with Orders Does Not Deprive District Court of Discretion to Dismiss Based on Continuing Non-Compliance with Other Aspects of Orders — “Hopelessly Belated Compliance” with Court Orders Not Accorded Great Weight — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal under Rule 41(b) And Are Unreviewable

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: The “Intent to Deprive” Standard in Rule 37(e)(2) Is The Equivalent of Bad Faith in Other Spoliation Contexts — Bad Faith Generally Means Destruction For The Purpose Of Hiding Adverse Evidence — Mere Negligence Is Insufficient Because It Does Not Sustain An Inference of Consciousness of a Weak Case

Sanctions and Attorney-Client Privilege: Sham (Objectively Baseless, Bad Faith) Litigation for Antitrust Purposes Triggers Crime-Fraud Exception — Not All Frivolous Litigation Falls within Crime-Fraud Exception (But Some Sanctionable Behavior Clearly Does)

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Exclusion of Retained Expert for Failure to Provide 26(a)(2)(B) Report — Factors (Sixth Circuit) — The Importance of The Evidence Factor Cuts Both Ways: “The More Important The Proof, The Greater The Effect Of Preclusion, But Also The Greater The Harm In Tardy Disclosure”

(1) Bankruptcy Courts Have Only Civil Contempt Powers; (2) All Monetary Contempt Sanctions Must Be Civil — Designed Either to Coerce Compliance Or Compensate a Party for the Contemnor’s Violation, and Not Have As A Primary Purpose to Vindicate the Authority of the Bankruptcy Court Or Punish the Contemnor

Rule 11 and Inherent Power Sanctions: Vexatious Litigant Injunction (VLI) Broadened to Bar Any Further Filings in Issuing District Court Due to Violation of Narrower VLI And Failure to Pay Monetary Sanctions

(1) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38 Sanctions Should Not Issue Against Recidivist Filer of Frivolous Claims for Filing Brief Consisting Mostly of Unsubstantiated Accusations; (2) Vexatious Litigant Injunction to Issue If Any Monetary Penalty Not Paid Promptly

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