Opinion ID: 3013652
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Finding of unreasonable conduct

Text: The bankruptcy court also sanctioned Leinbach under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011 for improperly executing the certification of no opposition.8 The court explained that sanction as follows: [Leinbach] certified that the notice of motion, response deadline and hearing, along with a copy of the motion to approve [the amended plan] had been served on all interested parties and that he received no opposition to the motion, all the time knowing that he had not served Fein with a copy of the motion . . . despite the repeated requests made by Fein to [Leinbach] for a copy of the motion. Bankr. Op. at 2 n.2. The district court concluded that Leinbach could not have reasonably believed that there was no opposition to the amended plan, yet his certification of no opposition represented that there was none. Dist. Ct. Op. at 12-13. We agree that Leinbach’s certification under these circumstances was, at the very least, objectively unreasonable. Sanctions were therefore appropriate. 8 Fed. R. Bankr. 9011 is the bankruptcy analog to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. See Fellheimer, Eicher & Braverman, 57 F.3d at 1220 n.2; Landon v. Hunt, 977 F.2d 829, 833 n.3 (3d Cir. 1992); see also Haymaker v. Green Tree Consumer Disc. Co., 166 B.R. 601, 606 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1994) (“Rule 9011 is designed to discourage pleadings that are frivolous, legally unreasonable, or without factual foundation.”). 10