Gal v. Viacom International, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• denying motion for sanctions where the moving party failed to comply with the strict requirements of Rule 11(c)(2)’s safe-harbor provision
• “the rule states explicitly that service of the motion itself is required to begin the safe harbor clock — the rule says nothing about the use of letters”
• “[T]he rule states explicitly that service of the motion itself is required to begin the safe harbor clock—the rule says nothing about the use of letters.”
• “[T]he plain language of the rule states explicitly that service of the motion itself is required to begin the safe harbor clock—the rule says nothing about the use of letters.”
• “[T]he plain language of the rule states explicitly that service of the motion itself is required to begin the safe harbor clock—the rule says nothing about the use of letters”
• “[T]he plain language of the rule states explicitly that service of the motion itself is required to begin the safe harbor clock—the rule says nothing about the use of letters.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).