McGowan v. Kroger Co. Michigan 709, 16-13216. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20180914f98
Visitors: 11
Filed: Sep. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 12, 2018
Summary: ORDER R. STEVEN WHALEN , Magistrate Judge . On January 30, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 [Doc. #93]. Plaintiffs state that "[i]n support of its motion, Plaintiffs rely on the facts and law set forth more fully in the accompanying brief." However, Plaintiffs did not file an accompanying brief, so the Court has no idea what they claim as a basis for their request for sanctions. In addition, Plaintiffs did not comply with the "safe harbor" provision of Ru
Summary: ORDER R. STEVEN WHALEN , Magistrate Judge . On January 30, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 [Doc. #93]. Plaintiffs state that "[i]n support of its motion, Plaintiffs rely on the facts and law set forth more fully in the accompanying brief." However, Plaintiffs did not file an accompanying brief, so the Court has no idea what they claim as a basis for their request for sanctions. In addition, Plaintiffs did not comply with the "safe harbor" provision of Rul..
More
ORDER
R. STEVEN WHALEN, Magistrate Judge.
On January 30, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 [Doc. #93]. Plaintiffs state that "[i]n support of its motion, Plaintiffs rely on the facts and law set forth more fully in the accompanying brief." However, Plaintiffs did not file an accompanying brief, so the Court has no idea what they claim as a basis for their request for sanctions.
In addition, Plaintiffs did not comply with the "safe harbor" provision of Rule 11. Rule 11(c)(2) sets forth a "safe harbor" provision that requires that a motion for sanctions not be filed until 21 days after service. "A party seeking Rule 11 sanctions must satisfy the procedural requirements of [Rule 11(c)(2)], commonly known as the `safe harbor' provision. This is an `absolute requirement.'" Mabbitt v. Midwestern Audit Service, Inc. 2008 WL 1840620, *1 (E.D.Mich. 2008) (Edmunds, J.), citing Ridder v. City of Springfield, 109 F.3d 288, 296 (6th Cir.1997).
Because Plaintiffs' motion [Doc. #93] is both procedurally and substantively deficient, it is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
