 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What's Rulle 11? |
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm
quote:
Rule 11. Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to Court; Sanctions
(a) Signature.
Every pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. Each paper shall state the signer's address and telephone number, if any. Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. An unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of attorney or party.
(b) Representations to Court.
By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
(c) Sanctions.
If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.
(1) How Initiated.
(A) By Motion. A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). It shall be served as provided in Rule 5, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion (or such other period as the court may prescribe), the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees.
(B) On Court's Initiative. On its own initiative, the court may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate subdivision (b) and directing an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated subdivision (b) with respect thereto.
(2) Nature of Sanction; Limitations. A sanction imposed for violation of this rule shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. Subject to the limitations in subparagraphs (A) and (B), the sanction may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, 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 some or all of the reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation.
(A) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of subdivision (b)(2).
(B) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded on the court's initiative unless the court issues its order to show cause before a voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party which is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.
(3) Order. When imposing sanctions, the court shall describe the conduct determined to constitute a violation of this rule and explain the basis for the sanction imposed.
(d) Inapplicability to Discovery.
Subdivisions (a) through (c) of this rule do not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions that are subject to the provisions of Rules 26 through 37.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
This reminds me of the time I loaned my car to a friend. She let it get very hot (even though I warned her to check the water) and she blew the engine. She avoided me for a couple of weeks so I thought she was embarrassed to talk to me. So I decided to approach her and tell her not to worry about the car. As it turned out she was avoiding me because she was furious because the engine blew and she had just bought $10 in gas that she couldn't use.
As for this case. Both the judge and the ungrateful b**** who filed the suit should find a life.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:26
|
|
The girls' behavior does seem strange, ummature, and something right out of the plot of a disney tween show.
On this special episode of 7th Heaven, Hillary Duff guest stars as Lizzy Mcguire, and proceeds to get entangled in the law for distributing cookies to crank neighbors. Barry Williams (of Brady Bunch fame) guest stars as the judge.
However, the outcome of this makes me furious! In America we don't have a Justice system, we have a legal system. It seems like the facts concerning their "malicious" action is that they knocked on the door and didn't respond to the woman asking who's there, then they left. The cookies seem like almost a side issue of no importance at all. Maybe it's where I'm partially insomniatic, but 10:30 at night isn't late. Unless this woman had a sign on her property saying no trespassing, it doesn't seem like this is trespassing. I just can't see how they could have found these girls liable for her hospital bill. If she only had to pay 900 dollars in doctor bills, it sounds like she didn't wrong with her. Except that she's a pyscho freak. If I had 900 extra dollars I would send it to the girls along with enough money to countersue the woman for harrassment. I wish people could simply set down and talk things out instead of always getting the court system involved.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-02-2005 04:05
Attachment: 
Smiley 
|
