Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00712/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00712-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 368
Nature of Suit: Asbestos Personal Injury - Prod.liab.
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD PALMER and CAROL PALMER,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

PNEUMO ABEX, LLC, et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C-10-0712 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OR FOR

ISSUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE; VACATING HEARING

Before the Court is the “Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions, or in the Alternative for

Issuance [of] Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions for Defense Counsel’s Violation of Rule

11 in Relation to Its Improper Removal,” filed February 26, 2010 by plaintiffs Ronald and

Carol Palmer. Defendant Pneumo Abex LLC (“Abex”) has filed opposition, to which

plaintiffs have replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in

opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for determination on the

parties’ respective written submissions, VACATES the hearing scheduled for March 19,

2010, and rules as follows.

To the extent the motion seeks an award of sanctions under Rule 11, the motion is

procedurally deficient, for the reason that plaintiffs did not comply with the requirement that

they wait to file the motion until after twenty-one days had elapsed following the date on

Case 3:10-cv-00712-MMC Document 56 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

In their reply, plaintiffs argue they should be relieved from the requirement set forth

in Rule 11(c)(2), for the asserted reason that neither the Clerk of the Court nor this Court

rescheduled the hearing on the motion for sanctions to a later date. The Court disagrees. 

The date on which the motion for sanctions is scheduled for hearing is irrelevant to the

issue of whether, before it was filed, it had been served on defendants at least twenty-one

days earlier.

2

which the motion was served on defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2).1

To the extent the motion requests that the Court, on its own motion, direct Abex to

show cause why it should not be sanctioned under Rule 11, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3),

the Court declines to issue such an order, for the reason that it does not appear from the

record before the Court that the notice of removal was filed for an improper purpose, was

frivolous, or that the statements therein lacked any evidentiary support, see Fed. R. Civ. P.

11(b).

Accordingly, the motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00712-MMC Document 56 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 2