Opinion ID: 175402
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Sanctioned Conduct Was the Filing of the Second Amended Complaint

Text: Appellees do not challenge that, if Lawrence was sanctioned for filing the second amended complaint, plaintiffs were entitled to notice and twenty-one days to correct or withdraw that pleading. Rather, they assert that the subject of their renewed sanctions motion was not the second amended complaint but, rather, Lawrence's failure to withdraw pleadings and papers relating to the deficient first amended complaint, a filing for which they had already satisfied the safe harbor provision of Rule 11(c)(2). The record does not support this argument. Whatever the subject of appellees' renewed motion, the district court specifically identified the sanctionable conduct [a]s the assertion and maintenance of plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint following this Court's March 2005 ruling. Lawrence v. Richman Grp . of Conn., LLC, 2006 WL 3826684, at . To be sure, the district court explained that such conduct warranted sanctions because the contract claim alleged in the second amended complaint had already been found to lack any merit and thus was frivolous. Id. But nowhere did the district court indicate that it was sanctioning plaintiff for filing or maintaining the first amended complaint. That the sanctioned conduct was the filing of the second amended complaint is further confirmed by the fact that the district court awarded fees only from the filing of that complaint on March 21, 2005, and not from the March 7, 2005 dismissal of the first amended complaint, as recommended by the magistrate judge. Accordingly, we review Lawrence's safe harbor argument as it pertains to the filing of the second amended complaint.