Legal Opinion
Mary Ann Pensiero, Inc. v. Lingle
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided May 24, 1988No. 87-5588PublishedCited by 217 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
WEIS, Circuit Judge.*
Counsel for plaintiffs appeal the imposition of sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for failure to reasonably investigate the facts and research the law before filing the complaint in this antitrust suit. We conclude that the record reveals adequate compliance with the pre-filing requirements of Rule 11, and we will therefore vacate the award of sanctions. Moreover, to eliminate piecemeal appeals we adopt a supervisory rule that counsel seeking Rule 11 sanctions must file their motions before entry of final judgment in the district court.
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Bender v. Williamsport Area School DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment SecuritySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Sprague v. Ticonic National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by217 opinions
- Wolfington v. Reconstructive Orthopaedic Assocs. II PCCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2019
- Simon Debartolo Group, L.P., Gordon Altman Butowsky Weitzen Shalov & Wein v. The Richard E. Jacobs Group, Inc., and New England Development, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
- United States v. SimmonsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
- Mellon Bank Corporation and Mellon Bank, N.A., in No. 90-3712 v. First Union Real Estate Equity and Mortgage Investments, in No. 90-3790Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1991
- Martin v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
212 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.