Court Opinion

ID: 9815294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 00:36:53.419709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:30.396236
License: Public Domain

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment.
In my view, the district court could have sustained Rule 11 sanctions solely on the fact that counsel had offered Mr. Hawk as a party. However, the district court was not required to rest its determination solely on this factor, and, indeed, it did not. *612Rather, it premised its imposition of sanctions not only on that ground but also on the ground that counsel had engaged in a pattern of conduct that amounted to “claim jumping.” This latter reason is certainly not supported by the record.
Having afforded the district court a second opportunity to ground the award of sanctions on a. specific and appropriate basis, I do not think that we need to give it a third chance. See Kotsilieris v. Chalmers, 966 F.2d 1181, 1188 n. 2 (7th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, I join the judgment of the court.