VanDanacker v. Main Motor Sales Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that it would “wrench both the language and purpose” of Rule 11 to “permit an informal warning to substitute for service of a motion”
• observing that a motion to strike is applicable only to striking pleadings to eliminate “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f))
• rejecting Rule 11 sanctions when defendants sent only warning letters to the non- movant's counsel
• denying a motion to strike as inapplicable to memoranda in support of a motion
• denying motion to strike plaintiffs’ memorandum in opposition to a motion for attorney’s fees
• “In order to seek the imposition of sanctions on an opponent under Rule 11, the movant must follow the procedure specified in the Rule.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• First Bank of Marietta, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant
  First Circuit· 2002-10-10· cited 230×
• Gardenia Gordon v. Unifund Ccr Partners
  Eighth Circuit· 2003-10-10· cited 53×
• Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc.
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2003-12-16· cited 10×
• Rector v. Approved Federal Savings Bank
  Fourth Circuit· 2001-09-11· cited 6×
• Brown v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc.
  D. Minnesota· 2011-09-07· cited 5×
• In Re Kirk-Murphy Holding, Inc.
  N.D. Florida· 2004-05-24· cited 3×
• In re Aida's Paradise, LLC
  M.D. Florida· 2013-01-14· cited 1×
• Edwin Rector v. Approved Federal Savings Bank
  Fourth Circuit· 2001-09-11
• Acker v. Environmental Resources Management, Inc.
  D. Minnesota· 2015-02-27
• Wolfchild v. Redwood County
  D. Minnesota· 2015-06-09