No. 20-773

Nazir Khan, et al. v. Merit Medical Systems Inc., et al.

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2020-12-07
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: attorney-fees civil-procedure federal-circuit federal-rules-of-civil-procedure pro-se rule-11 sanctions service-of-process
Key Terms:
Patent
Latest Conference: 2021-05-13 (distributed 2 times)
Related Cases: 20-1363 (Vide)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a motion for Rule 11 sanctions may be granted despite the movants' failure to serve the motion prior to filing

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(2) provides that a motion for sanctions “must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets.” The Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of a motion for Rule 11 sanctions and the award of $95,966.90 in attorney fees against pro se litigants Nazir Khan and Iftikhar Khan (collectively “Khan’), despite the movants’ undisputed failure to serve Khan with the motion for sanctions at any time prior to filing the motion. The question presented is as follows: Whether—in line with holdings from the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits—a motion for Rule 11 sanctions may be granted only if the motion is served more than 21 days before filing, as required by Rule 11(c)(2); or whether a Rule 11 motion may instead be granted despite the movants’ failure to serve the motion prior to filing, as the Seventh and Federal Circuits have held.

Docket Entries

2021-05-17
Petition DENIED.
2021-04-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/13/2021.
2021-04-13
Reply of petitioners Nazir Khan, et al. filed.
2021-03-25
Brief of respondents Merit Medical Systems, Inc., et al. in opposition filed.
2021-02-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 25, 2021, for all respondents.
2021-01-29
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 25, 2021 to March 25, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-01-26
Response Requested. (Due February 25, 2021)
2021-01-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
2021-01-05
Waiver of right of respondents Mark Grove, M.D., and Javier Alvarez-Tostado, M.D. to respond filed.
2020-12-11
Letter pursuant to Rule 12.6 from counsel for petitioners filed.
2020-12-08
Waiver of right of respondent Merit Medical Systems, Inc. et al. to respond filed.
2020-12-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 6, 2021)

Attorneys

Mark Grove, M.D., and Javier Alvarez-Tostado, M.D.
Brian David SchmalzbachMcGuireWoods LLP, Respondent
Brian David SchmalzbachMcGuireWoods LLP, Respondent
Merit Medical Systems, Inc., et al.
David R. ToddWorkman Nydegger, Respondent
David R. ToddWorkman Nydegger, Respondent
Nazir Khan, et al.
Jonathan Alan HerstoffHaug Partners LLP, Petitioner
Jonathan Alan HerstoffHaug Partners LLP, Petitioner