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).