Archive

• Proper Notice is Key to a Proper Sanction: New Opinions

  This entry was contributed by Ann Anderson on July 19, 2019 at 11:05 pm and is filed under Civil Practice, Civil Procedure-General, Constitutional Issues.

  The Court of Appeals has issued two very recent opinions that remind us that parties may not be sanctioned without proper notice.  The party must have notice not only of the fact that sanctions are on the table but also of the specific basis for those sanctions.

  In both cases, the defendant was given a severe sanction that effectively decided the issue of liability in the plaintiffs’ favor.  In neither case did the Court of Appeals suggest that the sanctions themselves were out of proportion to the conduct. The sanctions were reversed because due process demands a degree of notice not provided in either situation. Continue Reading

• Is it too late to seek Rule 11 sanctions?

  This entry was contributed by Ann Anderson on June 28, 2017 at 12:12 pm and is filed under Civil Practice, Civil Procedure-General, Jurisdiction.

  As every North Carolina litigator should know, Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure states that, by signing a pleading or “other paper” (motion, subpoena, etc.) related to the litigation, the attorney certifies that,

  to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

  If an opposing party decides that the paper violates one more of these requirements—legal sufficiency, factual sufficiency, or proper purpose—that party can move the court to impose “an appropriate sanction,” which may include attorney fees and other expenses.  Rule 11 does not, however, set a time limit for filing a Rule 11 motion.  So when is it too late?  I have been asked this question (or similar ones) a few times in recent months.  The short answer, of course, is that it depends on the facts.  But  I thought I would share the parameters I have observed from reviewing the case law: Continue Reading

• The Harshest of Remedies: Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute

  This entry was contributed by Ann Anderson on June 8, 2016 at 5:00 am and is filed under Civil Practice, Civil Procedure-General.

  In civil litigation, delays can seem almost inevitable. Because litigation happens in the real world and not a perfect one, the Rules of Civil Procedure allow a little flexibility.  Within limits, parties are permitted to extend the various deadlines for pleadings, discovery, responses to motions, and other requirements (as a starting point, see Rule 6(b)).  But sometimes parties can simply push the delays too far.  For various reasons some plaintiffs just won’t advance the ball, and for their opponents, the light at the end of the litigation tunnel starts to fade.  When a case languishes for too long without good reason, the court may take action, even to the point of dismissing the case or claim entirely for “failure to prosecute.”  This authority is found in Rule 41(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which says:

  Continue Reading