several on contested facts in this case which combined with the undeniable law that would have applied in this case gave mr after every right to proceed with the i told section against p and c for  on the existence of work or with all due respect your honor i know that mr coit talked about the work orders he certainly did he certainly did but he wasn't a lawyer involved in the i know he's the principal you ought to know what what he's doing he didn't answer the legal question but he didn't he didn't make the kind he did he didn't make the contract he did not make  contradicted the rather he didn't say he made a contract he said he he went on at length in his testimony in that deposition about the calls in context made with four i don't get answers so the lawyers let me ask let me ask you first of all how long did it take knight tell to finish up its work for the banks i don't know the exact time and it was never really a question was months it was four different locations it went back and forth  the complaint doesn't allege a written contract the complaint so does that then what is the evidence that he had conversations with the with the bank and the bank said yeah we're hiring you for finish up in four months  my question is it of while of course an oral contract can be enforced we've got the lawyer in this is this is this is for ruhleben purposes we've got the lawyer telling us in our briefs p n c's challenge to work paragraph twenty seven played if agrees only that night tells allegations against mit american national city are based on purported work orders for each of the branches work with paragraph forty two and forty three  plaintiffs denies that night elevated had no contract with minimum erica for work at the branches in that the work order acted as a contract for the work done forty three plaintiff denies the night telling me that it had no contract to p and c for work at the branches in that the work order acted as a contract for the work done then we've got the complaint itself you say the work orders of the contracts so i am mystified as to how this was not frivolous given the explicit reliance on these phony work orders your honor i love that act i wasn't aware actually and i rethought i read that complaint and i wasn't aware that the complaint actually said that the workers were a contract to work orders are the work he was assuming at that point and that's the maybe some objection resistance to the fact that i tell even did the work the work orders in fact where it gets to the complaint but that became a moot point when b and c comes and says yeah you're auditor you did the work you finished the work but you have to get paid by next works but you only came up with this quantum error with theories far as i could tell this court and reply brief which is a little late and the other thing that we complication that we haven't mentioned is that then there's next we're off in florida in a bankruptcy proceeding and he blows the time limit for getting payment on a b and c thought it was billing next work next or was going going to pay it contractors next work goes into bankruptcy and it seems that that's such a straightforward explanation for what went on that all this business about the work orders and everything else is neither here nor there that they're not contracts they were just there to say we're out there at those locations there was never a dispute that i tell was out at those full of cases though there was never dispute that the work was done there was no dispute that they are not contracts they couldn't have come in to a trial under any circumstance they would've been totally irrelevant i find that just a stunning about face frankly but that's been  consistent approach of nightowl it's only been p and c that keeps insisting that the cases be dismissed because they challenge the work orders well they're just saying there's no we don't have a contractual obligation to pay you and that's what we're decision and midcoast aviation made it clear that a sum contractor could go after the owner under a theory of a basically unjust enrichment that's exactly what we have here is the same scenario that not working for next work anymore because next work is going for zero and we'd like to finish the work for you you know which we've been doing and we'd like to be paid this is how much we sensor my question of course your honor they did of course they went out there after after the email that went to next tonight tell saying that they want only one shots or you guys deal directly they've continue about the work orders he does he was asked about them and that's not the correct legal answer either he wasn't there was no contract on work or we all know that we all know that c did mr ritter ever challenge the amount of the sanction in the district court i didn't see it other than i think the comment was in the response that judge blakey had actually mentioned that he should that shift fees as a sanction which is what exactly he did well or that's not him but there was no dispute about reasonable because as the court's aware knight tell their appeal was dismissed because are you trying to suggest that mr ritter is not allowed to take advantage of what was asserted on behalf of my tell by him in the district court i am i am saying as it relates because the only matter before this court of the sanctions order i'm saying that mr ritter did not file any objection in the lower court before judge blakey custos it sound to me so much like an apology let me go back to my let my question how do you eat how does either of your letters satisfy rule eleven see to it is as a judge like you pointed out and as we believe the most recent cases can come up that we allowed that's the point the point and in fact now you did judge blakey and you cited the matrix for decision which all go in traces this line of dicta from our cases that go back to the nice and brown case right right about substantial compliance right i have a couple of questions about it first i'd like to have you reconcile that with the plain language and of the rule and the advisory notes i'd also like you to tell us whether any other circuit agrees we seem to be all alone on this point to your second point your honor we could find out what their circuit in fact a bunch of circuits have explicitly rejected nice and baum and it's unexplained substantial compliance rule correct yes or ok and whether nice and baum is correct or not can you direct us to any other cases that treat as sufficient under rule levon see to a letter that requires a response in less than twenty one days and the demands payment in addition to dismiss or withdraw which is what both of your letters did know you why should we treat this as a viable rule of a motion for sanctions because your honor we believe that the letter provides mr ritter with adequate notice of the bank's  position with respect to his complaint it while it gave him a shorter than twenty one day period to dismiss he could have dismissed the complaint at any time they were after without paying fees he could have made his motion to  three amendments and the big fight over the ninety three minutes right correct or rather this was a big deal and this was a very carefully crafted compromise and you disregard of the requirements completely well you want with respect to filing these sanctions too late i got to look i agree that this was a frivolous claim and a frivolous lawsuit it should have been dismissed but i'm also looking at a complete failure on your part to comply with the the steps procedurally needed to get a financial sanction know would be that would be wrong and you didn't come close with a demand for payment in the shorter time period rather the demand for payment there's nothing in the rule that i see that read that doesn't allow the party to say i want to dismiss your good complaint and i want you to reimburse us for you can make that request the question is whether it complies with the trigger mechanism needed for a rule eleven monetary sanction if the ruhleben sanction the the the rule just merely provides that you if there's more that you want to add i'm helpless on your honor that being said we do believe the judge blakey's sanctions order was appropriate in this case the pleadings filed there's been no appeal of the judgment order so all we're here on is the sanctions motion and we think your honor that the ruling by judge leahy granting sanctions should stand in effect just like he has  attention to the procedural niceties now while your honor the history of this case is such that mr ritter will do and say what he wants to do that's clear believe me and and he this is carried over past it i'm not in a not unsympathetic to your situation your client situation or to judge blakey's conclusion that this was a frivolous lawsuit and should have been dropped much earlier my problem was with roule and i think it's an important part of this court procedure i also think in the state court the same sanction a rule one thirty seven is very important as well but i think one thirty seven in the seat court he impose costs on the opponent and should should pay them no matter if if i mean it and it's clear what would my own perspective the midcoast case i believe and titles in these facts i tell to a cause of action that there was all this confusion about the work orders and mr course i should have been prepared better at least if there was can be legal questions i understand that but but i believe nigella actually has a cause a picture for the unpaid work based on him and him because deviation case but there is a separate issue i mean future conduct it now the sheaf of fee shifting thing which was done here eighty four thousand dollars is a huge sanction the matrix case that they relied on was a twenty five hundred dollar sanction it was too much and it was the same thing it was the same thing because in the matrix case but it was but the a subsidiary of sanctions is the cost to the two to the person that the challenge to those workers if that's in fact the problem here if the challenge didn't come until a year and a half after the case it started mr ritter couldn't possibly thought that the correct ones they commit with effort they would think those are their signatures did the people and i tell walking with a with a tool box walk behind the bank desk and say i'm here to do your table work i think they would be here and a criminal case if they tried that function as a rule they had two letters one which one hundred ninety one hundred dollar fine and one fifteen other what twenty four thousand fine and it was it the question of the workers didn't come until the the second rule eleven letter when they want forget about your arguments that it wasn't fair but if it was privileged by these appropriate sanctions or is there something wrong with the sanctions or as you know judge hamilton was just i think the sanctions very energy has to be you have to comply with the rules if you're going to say somebody else didn't comply with rules and you're entitled to a sanction you yourself must comply with the rules i think the p r c had to give a safe harbor notice to comply with the committee minutes and the cases that have come up since that time they didn't they wanted the self imposed sanctions and two letters and they didn't even raise the issue and the workforce i'm told well into two thousand and thirteen if that the way doesn't really help you know if they were forged work orders from the point right there was don't prove that night california no proof no i mean somebody signed a work order for not tell to go was an iris agent if somebody said that to me i would say you know what i want to forget these efforts it was show me if those are frauds show me the ones they did they never did that why didn't they produce oh here's the real work or they didn't do that