Star Mark Management, Inc. v. Koon Chun Hing Kee Soy & Sauce Factory, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Rule 11 “does not require the service of a memorandum of law or affidavits”
• holding that a party complied with Rule 11 because “gave notice that it would be seeking sanctions under Rule 11 and identified six reasons why it believed Rule 11 had been violated”
• holding that Rule 11’s safe harbor provision “is a strict procedural requirement”
• noting that Rule 11 sanctions for pleadings are subject to “objective unreasonableness” standard
• noting that “[t]he safe-harbor provision is a strict procedural requirement,” and that “[a]n informal warning in the form of a letter without service of a separate Rule 11 motion is not sufficient to trigger the 21-day safe harbor period”
• defining a frivolous argument in context of Rule 11 sanctions as a legal position with “no chance of success” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).