If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.
A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed with or presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred for the motion.
On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).
A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include, nonmonetary directives, an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.
The court must not impose a monetary sanction:
(A)against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2); or
(B)on its own, unless it issued the show–cause order under Rule 11(c)(3) before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.
An order imposing a sanction must describe the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction.
Comments
COMMENT TO 2017 AMENDMENTS
Rule 11 has been amended consistent with the 2007 stylistic changes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Two provisions that are unique to the Superior Court rule are retained, including language related to the court’s eFiling program and a provision explicitly prohibiting use of a rubber stamp.
COMMENT
This rule is identical to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. This Rule also makes clear that a signature affixed by a rubber stamp is not sufficient.