RONALD S.W. LEW, Senior District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Federation of Telugu Associations of Southern California's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Sanctions against Defendant Telugu Association of Southern California ("Defendant") and Defense Counsel [66]. The Court, having considered all arguments presented to the Court,
The Court
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides that every pleading, motion, or other paper presented to the court must be signed by an attorney, or the party if not represented by an attorney. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). The signature certifies that the pleading, motion, or other paper is: 1) warranted by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law; or 2) supported by evidence or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2) and (3).
The test imposed by Rule 11 is an objective one.
Frivolous filings meriting imposition of sanctions under Rule 11 are those that are both baseless and made without reasonable and competent inquiry.
Sanctions under Rule 11 are limited to misconduct in the filing of "pleading[s], written motion[s], and other paper[s]" filed with the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b);
With respect to the alleged failure to investigate the declaration in question, Defendant argues that it made a reasonable effort to communicate with the third party about the contents of the declaration and process for signing it by sending a series of e-mails to the third party regarding the declaration.
Even if the contents of the declaration are false, there is little evidence that Defendant or Defense Counsel failed to investigate and then knowingly filed a false declaration. Thus, it appears that the Offending Parties' conduct does not rise to the level of a sanctionable offense.
With respect to Plaintiff's charge of failing to investigate and then filing an unsupported affirmative defense, Defendant has yet to specifically plead the defense in question, abatement, although it has noted that it may yet raise such a defense. Opp'n 11:17-23. Further, while Plaintiff argues that the third party's deposition indicates that abandonment is not a tenable defense, Defendant is correct in asserting that the third party's inconsistent deposition testimony does not necessarily mean that any suggestion of abandonment is uninvestigated or unreasonable, as is required for sanctions. Accordingly, the Court should not find any conduct worthy of sanctions here. Finally, because Plaintiff's third grounds for sanctions, unreasonable delay, is based on the first two accusations, it is similarly without merit. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is