Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, as most readers likely know, says an attorney making a filing certifies that the filing has factual support:
(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney . . . certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: . . .
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery . . . .
FRCP 11.
If the opposing party has reason to doubt that an attorney has met their burden, it can threaten a Rule 11 motion. The procedure gives parties an opportunity to cure, though, and parties sometimes do.
A Real Live Rule 11 Motion
Those motions are often threatened but, in practice, we don't see a ton of rulings on Rule 11 motions in the District of Delaware. So it was interesting to see the Court's ruling today in Central Santa Lucia, L.C. v. Expedia Group, Inc., C.A. No. 22-367-JLH (D. Del. Mar. 10, 2025).
That case involves a violation of a federal statute regarding the sale of certain property. To bring a case, the plaintiff must have acquired ownership of the property before a specific date: March 12, 1996.
The plaintiff in the case claimed it owned the relevant property as of the date. The defendant disagreed, and filed a Rule 11 motion seeking sanctions for filing a pleading that relied on fraudulently backdated documents to show ownership:
Expedia has now moved for sanctions against CSL and its attorneys. . . . In support of its request for sanctions, Expedia has submitted to the Court substantial evidence that the assignment documents were fraudulently backdated and were, in fact, executed years after March 12, 1996. Expedia also asks this Court to stay all proceedings in this case pending the Court’s determination of whether CSL and its attorneys engaged in sanctionable conduct by filing a complaint without conducting a reasonable inquiry into whether the allegations concerning the purported March 7, 1996 assignment were false.
Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff responded by denying the allegations and asking the Court to appoint a special master to decide the issue.
Noting that the factual issue could be dispositive of the case, the Court rejected the request and denied the motion without prejudice to renew after fact discovery:
The factual question of whether CSL acquired ownership of its alleged claim prior to March 12, 1996, is hotly disputed, and its resolution may be dispositive of this case. The Court is not persuaded that the assistance of a special master in resolving that dispute is necessary or appropriate; accordingly, CSL’s motion (D.I. 112) is DENIED. Nor is the Court persuaded that it would be appropriate to rule on Expedia’s motion for sanctions before the close of discovery and the resolution of the factual dispute underlying the motion; accordingly, Expedia’s motion for sanctions (D.I. 90) is DENIED without prejudice to renew . . . .
Id. at 2.
But the Court is taking the allegations seriously. It recognized that the allegations are "highly concerning," and instead of granting the motion outright, it suggested a stay of all discovery other than as to the ownership date and (seemingly sua sponte) bifurcated trial so that the Court could hold an entire trial just on that issue:
That said, the Court appreciates Expedia’s point that first resolving the question of whether and when CSL acquired its alleged claim before turning to the other issues in the case has the potential to expedite and economize these proceedings. Under these unique (and highly concerning) circumstances, the Court is inclined to stay discovery on all issues except the issue of whether and when CSL acquired ownership of its alleged claim from the alleged assignors. As that issue has the potential to be entirely dispositive of this case, the Court is further inclined to bifurcate that issue for trial pursuant to Rule 42(b), which permits a separate trial of one or more issues “[f]or convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).
Id. It directed the parties to meet-and-confer and report back.
I'd call that a successful Rule 11 motion!
"Highly Concerning" Allegations
So, what are the highly concerning allegations? Many of them relate to the notarization of the key document—the one that had to be dated before March 12, 1996:
According to the defendant's brief (D.I. 94):
- The assignment documents were allegedly notarized on March 7, 1996 with a notary stamp saying the notary's commission expires May 18, 2002. But Florida notary commissions at the time were valid only for 4 years, suggesting it was notarized in 1998 or later.
- The notarization states that the document was signed in "Miami-Dade" county, which didn't exist until a year and a half later (up until 1997 it was "Dade county").
- "[T]he Florida Division of Corporations has confirmed that it did not issue . . . the commission number that appears [on the stamp] until May 19, 1998." Id. at 2.
- The attorney who notarized the document was previously suspended from practice "because he altered a previously executed memorandum of understanding and then filed a lawsuit based on and attaching that altered memorandum." Id. at 4.
The defendant argues that the attorneys in the case have now admitted that the notarization was false, but nonetheless claimed that the documents themselves were signed years earlier. Id. at 5.
The brief then digs into the metadata of the documents, which the defendant alleges show a creation date in the year 2000 at a law firm that did not exist until 1998, and reflect a client/matter number for the relevant client used at that firm.
The allegations actually get even worse from there, detailing the alleged efforts the attorney who drafted the document and others went through to hide, fix, or backtrack on things. Id. at 7-13.
I have to agree, all of that sounds "highly concerning"! I imagine the trial on this issue will be quite a show, if it goes forward. But I'm also guessing that, if the allegations in the defendant's brief are true, it likely won't be going forward.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
