## Facts

- Plaintiffs operated an auto body shop as a nonconforming use and sought a permit to expand operations after zoning changes.
- Plaintiffs sued a municipal zoning board in federal court, asserting constitutional claims including equal protection based on allegedly discriminatory permit treatment.
- The court granted summary judgment dismissing all claims in the second amended complaint except equal protection, and dismissed the equal-protection claim with leave to replead consistent with the court’s directions.
- Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint whose equal-protection allegations were identical to the previously dismissed version and did not cure identified deficiencies.
- The zoning board moved to dismiss the third amended complaint and incurred attorney time and legal research costs.
- Two days before oral argument on the motion to dismiss, plaintiffs withdrew the third amended complaint and sought leave to file a fourth amended complaint; leave was granted.
- The zoning board then sought Rule 11 sanctions totaling $21,241.81, including attorney’s fees, research charges, and other litigation expenses tied to responding to the third amended complaint.

## Issues

1. Whether filing a third amended complaint that repeated an equal-protection claim previously dismissed with specific directions to replead violated Rule 11’s requirement of an objectively reasonable pre-filing inquiry.
2. Whether withdrawing the pleading shortly before argument, after the opponent incurred dismissal-motion costs, supported a finding of sanctionable conduct.
3. What monetary sanction, if any, was appropriate given Rule 11’s deterrent purpose and limits on recoverable fees and expenses.

## Decision

- The court granted the sanctions motion in part and denied it in part.
- The court found a Rule 11 violation based on counsel’s objectively unreasonable refiling of an unchanged claim despite the court’s prior dismissal and instructions.
- The court imposed a monetary sanction but refused to award the full amount sought.
- The court limited recoverable items to amounts sufficient to deter similar conduct and reduced or disallowed portions of claimed fees and expenses it found excessive or not properly attributable to the violation.

## Legal Principles

- Presenting a pleading certifies, after reasonable inquiry, that it is not filed for an improper purpose, that legal contentions are warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for change, and that factual contentions have or likely will have evidentiary support.
- Rule 11 applies an objective reasonableness standard; subjective bad faith is not required.
- Repleading a claim in materially unchanged form after dismissal with leave to replead, without addressing identified defects, can violate Rule 11.
- Litigation timing and conduct, including last-minute withdrawal after substantial responsive work, may be considered in assessing whether filings caused avoidable expense and burden.
- Any sanction must be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition; it is not intended to provide full compensation or a windfall.

## Conclusion

The court held that counsel violated Rule 11 by refiling an equal-protection claim unchanged after a dismissal with specific instructions and by withdrawing it only after the defendant incurred motion-to-dismiss costs; the court imposed a reduced monetary sanction calibrated to deterrence rather than full reimbursement.


Kirschner v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Inc. Vill. of Valley Stream, 159 F.R.D. 391 (E.D.N.Y. 1995)