NEW HAMPSHIRE LAW AND LITIGATION BLOG by Patricia S. Gardner, Esq.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Rule 11 Amendment pending (Federal Practice)

Information from the Federal Bar Practice Section:


            Congress is now considering a proposal to modify, through legislation, the provisions of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The proposal is contained in H.R. 966, the proposed “Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2011.”  On March 11, 2011, the House Subcommittee on the Constitution received testimony concerning H.R. 966 from three witnesses supporting and opposing the bill.  The Federal Litigation Section’s Committee on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Trial Practice is currently studying the bill and other proposals to modify or retain Rule 11 as currently written or otherwise to regulate the conduct of counsel and litigants in federal litigation.  They seek your comments.

Proposed Amendments in H.R. 966

The H.R. 966 bill would repeal amendments that the Judicial Conference of the United States proposed for adoption effective in 1993, thereby in part reinstating an earlier version of Rule 11 that had been in force between 1983 and 1993.  It would also add a new provision for punitive monetary sanctions to be paid into court.

Under the bill, there would no longer be a “safe harbor” provision that allows an adverse party to withdraw or modify a challenged pleading or other paper before a sanctions motion can be filed or otherwise presented to the court.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2).  That safe harbor clause was adopted effective in 1993.

The bill would also provide that sanctions awards would once again be mandatory, rather than discretionary, in cases where a court has found that a pleading or other paper was signed without adequate factual or legal grounds.  Sanctions had been mandatory from 1983 to 1993.  The bill would specify that, in addition to any other sanctions the court might impose, “the sanction shall consist of an order to pay to the party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.” 

In doing so, the bill would repeal the current provision in Rule 11(c)(2) that that fees and costs “may” be awarded “if warranted.”  In place of that provision, the bill would further authorize punitive monetary awards, to be paid into the court, “if warranted for effective deterrence.” 

Testimony Supporting and Opposing the H.R. 966 Bill

According to testimony on behalf of the National Federation of Independent Business and the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, the changes are necessary because frivolous lawsuits and staggering litigation costs are creating a climate of fear for America’s small businesses.  In their view, the current “safe harbor” means that preparing a motion for sanctions may serve only to increase the costs for the moving party – which is, generally, the defendant.  And even if a plaintiff does not withdraw his or her claims for relief, and even if the court finds them to be frivolous, the discretionary nature of the current sanctions provision means that the court may choose not to impose any sanction other than dismissing the case.  These trade associations also believe that the current version of Rule 11 discourages judges from imposing sanctions for the purpose of compensating defendants for their attorney’s fees and costs.

In opposition to the H.R. 966 bill, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center has testified that the 1993 amendments of Rule 11 were adopted in the face of studies suggesting that the 1983 version of Rule 11 was deterring the filing of meritorious cases.  Additionally, in practice, civil rights and employment discrimination plaintiffs were impacted the most severely under the earlier version of Rule 11 as adopted in 1983.  Studies also showed that plaintiffs had been the targets of sanctions far more often than defendants, even though the terms of Rule 11 apply to all pleadings and other papers – including a defendant’s answer containing denials and affirmative defenses.  Scholars and practitioners had noted that the 1983 version actually increased costs and delays by encouraging “the Rambo-like use of Rule 11 by too many lawyers,” and that the resulting increase in sanctions-oriented motions practice had led to a breakdown of civility and professionalism.  This professor cited a 1991 study by the Federal Judicial Center, which revealed that few judges polled thought the then-current 1983 version of the rule was “very effective” in deterring groundless pleadings.  In a 2005 survey of 278 district judges polled by the Federal Judicial Center, more than 80% of the judges said that “Rule 11 is needed and it is just right as it stands now.”

Call for Comment and Proposals from the Federal Litigation Bar

The Committee on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Trial Practice seeks your comments.  Comments may be submitted concerning any of the proposed revisions contained in the H.R. 966 bill; or concerning any other proposals to modify Rule 11; or concerning whether to retain the text of Rule 11 as currently in force.  

Comments may be sent to Rob Kohn and John McCarthy who are co-chairs of the Committee on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Trial Practice.  Kohn is also the Secretary and Treasurer of the Federal Litigation Section; and McCarthy is Chapter President of the Southern District of New York chapter of the FBA.  Kohn may be reached at rkohn@kohnlawgroup.com or (310) 461-1520.  McCarthy may be reached at jmccarthy@sgrlaw.com or (212) 907-9703.

Please send them your comments no later than June 30, 2011.

No comments:

Post a Comment