UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 1, 2010
CARL ZEISS VISION INTERNATIONAL GMBH AND CARL ZEISS VISION INC., PLAINTIFFS,
SIGNET ARMORLITE, INC., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge
AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 11 [Docket No. 405]]
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Defendant filed an opposition to the motion, and Plaintiffs filed a reply.
"Rule 11 requires the imposition of sanctions when a motion is frivolous, legally unreasonable, or without factual foundation, or is brought for an improper purpose." Conn v. Borjorquez, 967 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. A-C Company, 859 F.2d 1336, 1344 (9th Cir. 1988)). In determining whether a claim is frivolous or brought for an improper purpose, the standard is one of objective reasonableness. See id. at 1421. "'If, judged by an objective standard, a reasonable basis for the position exists in both law and fact at the time the position is adopted, then sanctions should not be imposed.'" See id. (quoting Golden Eagle Dist. Corp. v. Burroughs Corp., 801 F.2d 1531, 1538 (9th Cir. 1986). The central purpose of the rule is to deter baseless filings in district court and streamline administration and procedure of the federal courts. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990).The Ninth Circuit has held: "Rule 11 is an extraordinary remedy, one to be exercised with extreme caution." See Operating Engineers, 859 F.2d at 1345.
Plaintiffs here have not demonstrated that Defendant's conduct was objectively unreasonable.
Accordingly, their motion for Rule 11 sanctions is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.