No. 19-651

John P. DeRose v. Village of Orland Park, Illinois, et al.

Lower Court: Seventh Circuit
Docketed: 2019-11-20
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: circuit-split civil-procedure federal-rules-civil-procedure federal-rules-of-civil-procedure motion-requirements rule-11 safe-harbor safe-harbor-provision sanctions service-of-motion
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity
Latest Conference: 2020-01-24
Question Presented (AI Summary)

May a party satisfy the safe-harbor provision of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION PRESENTED The 1993 amendments to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure added a safe harbor provision to allow the nonmovant a 21 day period to reconsider the legal and factual basis for the challenged contentions and, if necessary, to withdraw the offending document. The safe harbor provision is triggered by service of a motion that “must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b).” FED R. Civ. P. (c)(2). The question presented is: May a party satisfy the safe-harbor provision of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 by informal communications, the rule applied by Seventh Circuit, or must the party comply with the text of the rule and serve the nonmovant with a formal motion for sanctions 21 days before filing, as required by the courts of appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits? @

Docket Entries

2020-01-27
Petition DENIED.
2020-01-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2020.
2019-11-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 20, 2019)

Attorneys

John P. DeRose
Kenneth N. FlaxmanKenneth N Flaxman P.C., Petitioner
Kenneth N. FlaxmanKenneth N Flaxman P.C., Petitioner