## Facts

- Rosalind Brown, an African-American former employee, sued Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. asserting individual and putative class race-discrimination claims under federal and state law.
- The complaint included detailed, company-specific class allegations describing alleged systemic discrimination (e.g., compensation guidelines, internal practices, and statistical disparities).
- In deposition, Brown frequently could not identify the factual basis for numerous detailed class allegations and sometimes gave testimony inconsistent with those allegations.
- Ameriprise discovered that many class-focused factual allegations were taken from an older discrimination complaint against an unrelated employer, with minimal edits (e.g., substituting the defendant’s name).
- Ameriprise moved for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, seeking dismissal and fees.
- A magistrate judge recommended finding a Rule 11 violation as to the class allegations, striking those allegations, and awarding Ameriprise fees related to the sanctions motion; Brown objected.

## Issues

1. Whether filing detailed, company-specific class allegations largely copied from unrelated litigation, without a reasonable factual basis, violated Rule 11(b)’s reasonable-inquiry and evidentiary-support requirements.
2. What sanctions under Rule 11(c) were appropriate, including dismissal, striking class allegations, and/or awarding attorneys’ fees.

## Decision

- The court found a Rule 11 violation as to the complaint’s class-based factual allegations.
- The court declined to dismiss the action because the sanctionable conduct primarily concerned the class allegations, not Brown’s individualized claims.
- The court struck all class-based allegations from the complaint.
- The court imposed monetary sanctions, awarding Ameriprise reasonable attorneys’ fees tied to litigating the Rule 11 issues, primarily against Brown’s counsel.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 11(b) requires counsel to conduct an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances and to ensure factual contentions have evidentiary support or are likely to obtain support after discovery.
- Presenting detailed, defendant-specific factual assertions implies counsel has a reliable factual basis; importing such assertions from unrelated litigation without investigation can be misleading and sanctionable.
- Sanctions under Rule 11(c) must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition and should be tailored to the misconduct.
- Where sanctionable conduct taints only part of a pleading, a targeted remedy (e.g., striking specific allegations and awarding fees) may be appropriate while allowing non-tainted individual claims to proceed.

## Conclusion

The court held that counsel’s copying of detailed, purportedly Ameriprise-specific class allegations without an adequate factual investigation violated Rule 11, struck the class allegations, and awarded attorneys’ fees as a deterrent, while permitting Brown’s individual discrimination claims to continue.


Brown v. Ameriprise Fin. Servs., Inc., 276 F.R.D. 599 (D. Minn. 2011)