Paul Enos

2012 | Cited 0 times | D. Rhode Island | September 5, 2012


Before the Court is the Defendant's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. This Court is familiar with the travel and procedural history of this case, having conducted at least one conference and presided over an aborted bench trial prior to the events described in Defendant's Motion. The Court is also aware of the fact that Magistrate Judge Almond has spent considerable time with the parties in an effort to bring this matter to a full and fair resolution.

Having now presided over the continuation of the aborted bench trial and having now rendered a decision as to Plaintiff's claims, the Court is fully informed as to the miscommunication between counsel that now forms the basis of Defendant's ill-conceived Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. The Court's view of these events is consistent with the description contained in Plaintiff's opposition to the Motion for Rule 11 Sanction.

Defendant's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions is DENIED.


Mary M. Lisi

Back to top