Rector v. Approved Federal Savings Bank

Rector v. Approved Federal Savings Bank - is not...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Rector v. Approved Federal Savings Bank 265 F.3d 248 (2001) Fact: Operative Facts: Rector is a attorney, and in his complaint against the Approved Federal Savings bank, he asked for damages of 60 billion, and 20 billion for punitive damages. The case however was not involved with that much amount of money, but less than 4 million. Approved then filed a motion for sanctions because of the friducious claims. They served the motion later than excepted, where Rector had a defense of a 21-day safe harbor defense. However, he did not state this defense until they were past the first court of appeals. Issue: whether Rule 11 is jurisdictional and whether Rector is entitled to the Safe harbor clause in rule 11. Rule: The “safe harbor” provision is waived if not brought up in a reasonable time, and Rule 11
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: is not jurisdictional. Rational: Rule 11s safe harbor clause has been litigated and has been called mandatory and an absolute pre-requisite, however it was never called jurisdictional. Also, because of this, the court analogize it with other rules, stating that if they defendant does not bring up the 21-day safe harbor provision as a defense, they are assumed to have consented to it. Since Rector did not bring up the provision in a reasonable time, he was assumed to have waived it, and was liable for the Rule 11 sanction. Holding: Rule 11 applies even if a court does not have jurisdiction and if the defendant does not bring up the safe harbor 21 days provision, then it is deemed waived. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online