## Facts

- Stephen Michael Ridder filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the City of Springfield, Ohio, and others arising from his arrest and pretrial incarceration on multiple rape-related charges.
- Ridder alleged police withheld exculpatory or inconsistent information from a search-warrant affidavit and failed to investigate his alibis, violating due process.
- After roughly five years of litigation, the parties consented to adjudication by a magistrate judge, who granted summary judgment for all defendants.
- The magistrate judge concluded Ridder failed to produce evidence supporting municipal liability against the City (i.e., no policy, custom, or practice attributable to the City).
- After summary judgment, the City moved for sanctions against Ridder’s counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (1993 amendments) and for attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
- The City did not serve the Rule 11 motion on counsel at least 21 days before filing it, as required by Rule 11’s safe-harbor procedure.
- The magistrate judge imposed $32,546.02 against Ridder’s counsel, treating the award as both Rule 11 sanctions and § 1927 fees.
- The appeal addressed only the sanctions/fee award, not the merits judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 11 sanctions may be imposed when the movant files the sanctions motion after summary judgment and without serving it 21 days in advance to provide a safe-harbor period.
2. Whether attorney fees were properly awarded against counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying the proceedings.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit disallowed Rule 11 sanctions because the City failed to comply with Rule 11’s mandatory safe-harbor service requirement.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the $32,546.02 award under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, holding counsel unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings.
- The net result left the monetary award intact, but only on the § 1927 basis rather than Rule 11.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 11’s 21-day safe-harbor requirement is a mandatory procedural prerequisite to sanctions sought by motion; failure to serve the motion before filing bars Rule 11 sanctions.
- A Rule 11 sanctions motion filed after final disposition (including summary judgment) is generally incompatible with the safe-harbor mechanism because it deprives the opposing party of a meaningful opportunity to withdraw or correct the challenged filing.
- 28 U.S.C. § 1927 provides independent authority to assess excess costs and attorney fees against an attorney who unreasonably and vexatiously multiplies proceedings, and it is not subject to Rule 11’s safe-harbor procedure.
- Persistent pursuit of a claim lacking evidentiary support, leading to prolonged litigation and added expense, can support § 1927 fees when it reflects unreasonable and vexatious multiplication of proceedings.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that Rule 11 sanctions cannot be imposed by motion without strict compliance with the 1993 safe-harbor service requirement, particularly when sought only after summary judgment, but it affirmed the same monetary award as attorney fees under § 1927 based on counsel’s vexatious multiplication of the litigation.


Ridder v. City of Springfield, 109 F.3d 288 (6th Cir. 1997)