I'm guessing Sullivan's use of Section 78u-4(c) and his refernce to Judge Failla of rule 11(b) has Judge Failla's clerks is making Rosen uncomfortable, and her law clerks leaving no stone unturned. From what I read, although the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995(PSLRA), sited by Sullivan, section 78u-4(c) is often not brought up by attorneys. Sullivan has brought it up. From www.law360.com- "When invoked, Section 78u-4(c) has teeth. The PSLRA “establishes a presumption that, for substantial failure of any complaint to comply with any requirement of Rule 11(b), the award shall be the full amount of the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.”
Another cut &paste: Section 78u-4(c) further mandates that courts impose sanctions where it determines that Rule 11 was violated:
(2) Mandatory sanctions. If the court makes a finding under paragraph (1) that a party or attorney violated any requirement of Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to any complaint, responsive pleading, or dispositive motion, the court shall impose sanctions on such party or attorney in accordance with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Prior to making a finding that any party or attorney has violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court shall give such party or attorney notice and an opportunity to respond.[2]
Finally, 11(b) rules:
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 or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(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; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
Rosen, me thinks, screwed others first, then themselves(thanks to Michael Sullivan). Time will tell.
