Opinion ID: 217256
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Motions for Sanctions.

Text: We review a decision on a Rule 11 motion for sanctions for abuse discretion. See Corroon v. Reeve, 258 F.3d 86, 92 (2d Cir. 2001). “A district court has abused its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or rendered a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted). Here, the district court was required to deny plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions for failure to comply with the 21-day “safe harbor,” which requires Rule 11 motions to be served on the opposing party 21 days prior to their filing, in order to afford that party an opportunity to withdraw their allegedly sanctionable claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2); Hadges v. Yonkers Racing Corp., 48 F.3d 1320, 1328 (2d Cir. 1995). The Rule 11 Advisory Committee Note cited by plaintiffs, which provides that a court may award attorneys’ fees to the “target” of a Rule 11 motion, does not create an exception to the safe harbor requirement. 2 Additionally, for the reasons stated in its decision, the district court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for sanctions.