Mark A. Nisenbaum, Cross-Appellee v. Milwaukee County

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that sending demand letter, rather than formal service of the motion, constituted substantial compliance
• finding that service of a letter satisfies Rule 11(c)(2)
• finding party entitled to a decision on the merits of their Rule 11 motion where they sent “a ‘letter’ or ‘demand’ rather than ‘a motion’” and gave over 21 days to respond
• “Party-initiated sanctions under Rule 11 depend on the filing of a motion under [Rule 11(c)(2)].”
• “This inability to recall is striking, . . . It amounts to a confession that the suit never had a factual basis.”
• “[Defendant] prevailed at trial, and the magistrate judge’s decision that a trial was essential precludes any shifting of trial costs back to [plain‐ tiff].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).