Document: 493 U.S. 120 110 S.Ct. 456 107 L.Ed.2d 438 PAVELIC & LeFLORE, Petitionerv.MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP et al. No. 88-791. Argued Oct. 2, 1989. Decided Dec. 5, Syllabus Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides in pertinent part that pleadings and other papers shall be signed by at least one attorney record the attorney's individual name, which signature certify he or she has read paper believes it to well grounded fact law; that, "[i]f a . is violation this rule, court impose upon person who it, represented party, both, an appropriate sanction." In present case, District Court imposed monetary sanction against law firm signing attorney, rejecting firm's contention could only signer. The Appeals affirmed. Held: When context all 11's provisions, phrase "person signed" connotes signer mentioned outset authorizes individual. That so even when explicitly signs on behalf firm, since "in name " complies with Rule's requirement latter portions attach consequences. Pp. 123-127. 854 F.2d 1452 (CA 2 1988), reversed remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., BRENNAN, WHITE, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, filed dissenting opinion, post, p. 127. Jacob Laufer, New York City, for petitioner. Norman B. Arnoff, respondents. Justice SCALIA Court. 1 part: "If pleading, motion, sanction. ." case we must determine whether not signed, but also firm. * action giving rise current controversy was instituted plaintiff Northern J. Calloway respondents willful copyright infringement his motion picture script related claims. original complaint—signed Calloway's Ray L. LeFlore—alleged had developed idea written script, begun develop work without permission. Respondents dismiss, pointing series documents annexed complaint gave them right commercially. dismissed (with leave refile), ground authorized alleged infringement, because failed specify registration number dates acts occurred. 3 An amended complaint, again LeFlore, several weeks later. addition remedying defects were basis dismissal, newly asserted signatures purporting grant option been forged respondents, included among actions damages sought. Plaintiff relied forgery claim opposing respondents' motions dismiss summary judgment. 4 October 1984, LeFlore joined Radovan Pavelic form partnership LeFlore. Thereafter, signed: 5 "Pavelic By /s/ 6 (A Member Firm) 7 Attorneys Plaintiff." 8 Several these papers, including interrogatory responses proposed pretrial order, continued rely allegation forgery. At trial, found insufficient evidence support contention, directed verdict favor issue. jury returned remaining 9 Upon after hearing, amount $100,000 no investigated sufficiently counsel. moved relieve sanction, contending (1) did exist during major portion litigation therefore fully responsible violations, (2) empowers paper, accepted first its order shift half from It rejected second however, concluding sanctions may "on both whose papers." v. Marvel Entertainment Group, Div. Cadence Industries Corp., 650 F.Supp. 684, 687 (SDNY 1986). 10 Second Circuit affirmed, 1452, 1479 (1988), thus placing itself square disagreement earlier holding Fifth than lawyer lawyers sign see Robin- son National Cash Register Co., 808 1119, 1128-1130 (1987). We granted certiorari, 489 1009, 109 1116, 103 179 (1989). II give Rules their plain meaning, Walker Armco Steel 446 740, 750, n. 9, 100 1978, 1985 64 659 (1980), generally as statute, "[w]hen find terms unambiguous, judicial inquiry complete," Rubin United States, 449 424, 430, 101 698, 701, 66 633 (1981). specific text issue here provision requires court, Rule, "impose Thus viewed isolation, ambiguous point before us today. so, total provisions dealing filings. Those (all except two sentences) are follows: 12 "Every party address stated. A party's state address. constitutes certificate paper; best signer's knowledge, information, belief formed reasonable warranted existing good faith argument extension, modification, reversal law, interposed any improper purpose, such harass cause unnecessary delay needless increase cost litigation. If stricken unless promptly omission called attention pleader movant. own initiative, include pay parties expenses incurred filing fee." 13 contexts "the it" might bear somewhat technical legal meaning natural juridical signed; paragraph beginning signature, then proceeding discuss import consequences think references later reasonably thought connote outset. strange last sentence refers would pleading" reading necessarily someone partnership; pleading absence partnership. Just individual, recited run him. 14 Respondents' interpretation particularly hard they do assert signed," "shall" sanctioned under (that obviously unacceptable), rather either court's option. But leaving unexpressed seems quite inconsistent extreme care very same sentence, makes clear mandatory extend [the paper], both." surely puzzling why precise about speculation can sanctioned. puzzlement does exist, course, if means attorney. 15 appeal "long firmly established principles agency," Brief Group 29, members liable partner employee, Restatement (Second) Agency § 140 (1958). here, common-law liability, strikingly departs normal assumptions delegability. cannot some trusted subordinate, partners, satisfy himself factually legally responsible; represents merely personally applied Where establishes duty delegated, expect authorize punishment whom placed. fair language here. 16 formation LeFlore's simple response comply says "by name." (Emphasis added.) Even fashion indicated effect making partners (including himself) attorneys record, satisfies capacity, refer. long better practice complying behalf, beneath. See Gavit, State Procedure, 25 A.B.A.J. 367, 371 (1939) (Under 11, partnership" "undesirable" "improper"). 17 Respondents, Appeals, heavily policies underlying will served accountable violation. Appeals' words, "[law firm] responsibility create strong incentives internal monitoring, greater monitoring result improved pre-filing inquiries fewer baseless claims." F.2d, 1480. entirely certain liability more effectively achieve purposes feel free pursue objective expense textual unnatural have described. Our task apply text, improve it. 18 event strained Rule. would, sure, guarantee reimbursement innocent caused violation, normally funds purpose question, "sanction"; whole bring home personal, nondelegable responsibility. arguable just expects personally—and nameless within firm—to validate truth reasonableness filed, visit him firm—its retribution failing message thereby conveyed "team effort" analysis yours alone, precisely 11. Moreover, psychological aside, there economic deterrence know district him, divert (if associate) member, member) choose seek recompense To partnership's knowledge subject induce "internal monitoring," believe achieved directly increasing incentive take care. Such unthinkable compel conclusion mean what most naturally say. 19 For foregoing reasons, judgment insofar allows remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 20 ordered. 21 dissenting. 22 consistently held trial judge bears primary managing cases One fundamental strengthen hand efforts police abusive practices provide sufficient flexibility craft penalties each case. Court's contrast, overly restrictive, reads into absolute immunity firms misconduct. 23 Although recognizes relevant 11—"the issue—could document ante, 124, nonetheless finds limited whole. As I acquiesce erosion discretion federal judges, dissent. 24 "plain meaning" based connection perceives between 'signer,' crucial 'the signed' paper. Ante, 123-124. foreclose compelling, one—and certainly required meaning." Significantly, three separate places identifies "signer." Yet uses different phrase, listing drawing explicit distinction phrases. drafters intended limit entity signer, easily repeated word "signer" fourth time. use phrases indication meanings. "signer," unambiguously sought refer actually document; subsequent signaled intent allow person, drafted committee familiar traditional concepts, assume "person" indicates persons, encompassing partnerships professional corporations well. See, e.g., U.S.C. 551(2) (Administrative Act defines "individual, partnership, corporation, association, public private organization agency"); N.Y. Partnership Law (McKinney 1988) (defining "individuals, partnerships, corporations, associations"). least, gives less plausible majority's restrictive construction All pleadings, motions, name. This serves administrative goal identifying answer questions papers. Because often occur end litigation, Advisory Committee's Notes Fed. Civ. Proc. 28 App., 129 (1982 ed., Supp. V), documents, months years earlier, identify contents. No concerns suggest should restricted 26 Furthermore, majority emphasizes, 126, promotes measure accountability ensuring takes direct filing. encouraging mutually exclusive goals. Indeed, heightened understands carelessness maliciousness liability. concern disserved where determines blameworthy. short, internally inconsistent, nor inevitably lead "puzzling" results, 125, agent. 27 decisively indicate interpreted broadly exercise formulating sanctions. Although, infers "to home" personal dictates, designed deter V) ("The 'sanctions' caption stresses deterrent orientation pleadings"). Admittedly, cases, solely halt effectively. imposing attempt encourage monitoring. position assess dynamics situation act accordingly. Recognizing need tailor particular situation, Committee emphasized "flexibility" violations. ibid. (discussing words "shall impose" sanctions). Flexibility important decides one, some, many entities Where, demand rigidity, unwise constrict options available faced observes behavior intimately facts allowed penalty deters future abuse. Today's decision unwisely ties hands judges deal frequently immediately violations ill administering justly efficiently. Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 1. 29 apportioned assessment relative culpability each. 684 sort contemplates. join creates coverage.

Category: 8