A.The Act does not change the procedure for imposing Rule 11 sanctions and it makes sanctions mandatory, removing any discretion from the district courts

B.The Act does not presume that the opposing party's attorneys' fees will be the sanction, rejecting the focus on deterrence reflected in Rule 11

C.The Act presumes that the opposing party's attorneys' fees will be the sanction, rejecting the focus on deterrence reflected in Rule 11

D.The Act changes the procedure for imposing Rule 11 sanctions and it makes sanctions mandatory, removing any discretion from the district courts

A.Rodriguez v. Local 112, Int'l Fed'n of Technical Eng'rs, No. Civ. 870142, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9071, at *15 (D. Mass. Aug. 3, 1989) - Documents refuting allegations of discrimination complaint available from the state agency.

B.Wigod v. Chicago Mercantile Exch., 981 F.2d 1510, 1523 (7th Cir. 1992) - Upholding sanctions award against plaintiff's attorney who failed to interview attorneys who represented the plaintiff in related proceedings and other available witnesses.

C.Vernon v. Port Authority of N.Y., 95 Civ. 4594 (PKL), 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9566, at *17-18 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2003) - Declining to award sanctions on the attorney for misstating status of discovery record where the attorney was new to the case, prior attorney's files had been destroyed, and information was not apparent from the record.

D.Chris & Todd, Inc. v. Arkansas Dep't of Fin. & Admin., 125 F.R.D. 491, 494 (E.D. Ark. 1989) Sanctions imposed upon the attorney who discussed general content of amended complaint with clients prior to filing but did not inform clients of the exact wording of new allegations, which proved to be false.

E.Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. Exzec, Inc., No. 93 C 5041, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20762, at *38-41 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 24, 1997) - Use of "information and belief" pleading not sanctionable at early stages of litigation where facts are complex.

A.Plante v. Fleet Nat'l Bank, 978 F. Supp. 59, 64-65 (D.R.I. 1997) - De novo review applies regardless of whether magistrate issues order or recommendation.

B.Hamil v. Mobex Managed Servs. Co., 208 F.R.D. 247, 250 (N.D. Ind. 2002) - "[A] party must request Rule 11 sanctions as soon as practicable after discovery of a Rule 11 violation."

C.Zambrano v. International Ass'n of Machinists, No. 89 C 6109, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2221, at *13-14 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 19, 1992) - Rejecting, after de novo review, magistrate judge's recommendation to impose sanctions.

D.Grimes v. City & County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240-241 (9th Cir. 1991) - The Ninth Circuit similarly held that discovery sanctions under Rule 37 are also appropriate for determination by magistrate judges.

E.Danvers v. Danvers, 959 F.2d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1992) - Remanded for reduction of sanctions award where defendant's attorney spent several hours researching and preparing for discovery on meritless action rather than moving to dismiss.

A.To operate with obligations that were concluded or arose before the date the person became sanctioned

B.To make payments under agreement or obligations

C.To make funds or economic resources available for the benefit of a designated person

D.To make any payments due to a designated person under contracts

E.To credit a frozen account with payments from a third-person provided that the incoming funds are also frozen

A.Justifiable

B.Measurable

C.Comparable

D.Accessible

E.Definable