Summary
The Seventh Circuit affirmed Rule 11 sanctions against an attorney for opposing summary judgment after discovery revealed no evidentiary support for the plaintiff's claims, holding that the attorney's duty of reasonable inquiry continues through each litigation stage. The court also held that the defendants' pre-motion letters and emails threatening sanctions substantially complied with Rule 11(c)(2)'s safe-harbor requirement under Seventh Circuit precedent (Nisenbaum v. Milwaukee Cty.), and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing $66,191.75 in fees.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendants complied with Rule 11(c)(2)'s safe-harbor requirement by sending letters rather than a motion.
- Whether DeRose's subjective good faith is a defense to Rule 11 sanctions.
Holdings
- Under Seventh Circuit precedent, substantial compliance with the safe-harbor provision is sufficient; sending letters threatening sanctions satisfies Rule 11(c)(2). The argument was waived because DeRose did not raise it until a motion for reconsideration.
- Subjective good faith is not a defense; the test is objective. An attorney must conduct a reasonable inquiry into the law and facts at each stage of litigation.
Key quotations
“Rule 11 requires counsel to study the law before representing its contents to a federal court. An empty head but a pure heart is no defense.” (7)
“We are the sole circuit to adopt this 'substantial compliance' theory, and other circuits have subsequently criticized our analysis as cursory and atextual.” (5)
Factual background
McGreal was fired from the police force after speaking at a village board meeting. He sued, but discovery revealed no evidence supporting his claims. The district court granted summary judgment, which was affirmed. The district court then imposed Rule 11 sanctions on his attorney, DeRose, for continuing to oppose summary judgment without evidentiary support.
Procedural history
McGreal sued the Village for retaliation; district court granted summary judgment for defendants; Seventh Circuit affirmed; defendants then moved for attorney fees; district court imposed sanctions under Rule 11 against plaintiff's counsel DeRose; DeRose appealed.