Port Drum Company v. Walter Umphrey and Kurt B. Chacon

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that sanctions are “meant to deter attorneys” and that a court can only impose “the least severe sanction adequate to serve th[at] purpose” (cleaned up) (emphasis omitted)
• holding “[i]f Rule 11 did expand substantive rights, it would be invalid under {he Enabling Act” because Rule ll’s purpose is to regulate procedure rather than create a new substantive right or an independent cause of action
• “Looking specifically at Rule 11, we find nothing that sets it apart from the other federal rules in any respect that would be deemed to confer new substantive rights.”
• The rules of civil procedure “shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any ■ substantive rights_”
• “[T]he rule’s primary purpose is to discourage groundless proceedings rather than to compensate wronged parties by means of affirmative relief.”
• Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not an independent cause of action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).