Gong v. Sarnoff
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-00343
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Gong v. Sarnoff, Judge Liman ordered briefs on whether a Rule 11 motion remains properly before the court after amendment.
Junwu Gong, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, and Stuart M. Sarnoff, whose Rule 11 dispute remained unresolved pending the parties’ letter briefs.
What happened
In Gong v. Sarnoff, O’Melveny & Myers LLP and Stuart M. Sarnoff served Junwu Gong’s lawyer with a motion under Rule 11 and supporting papers on March 29, 2023. During the 21-day period that allows a party to withdraw or correct a challenged filing, Gong received permission to file an amended complaint.
The court noted that decisions in the district and circuit suggest that seeking permission to amend during that period may prevent the court from deciding the Rule 11 motion. The court therefore asked the parties to address whether the motion remains properly before the court or had to be served again after Gong filed the amended complaint.
Judge Lewis J. Liman did not decide that question in this order. He directed the parties to file letter briefs of no more than three single-spaced pages by July 13, 2023.
The detailed version
- Gong v. Sarnoff · No. 1:23-cv-00343
- Lewis Liman
- July 7, 2023
Background
Defendants O’Melveny & Myers LLP and Stuart M. Sarnoff served copies of their motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and supporting papers on counsel for plaintiff Junwu Gong on March 29, 2023. Rule 11(c)(2) provides a 21-day period—often called a safe-harbor period—in which the challenged filing may be withdrawn or corrected before the motion is filed with the court.
During that period, at an April 14, 2023 initial pretrial conference, Gong requested and received permission to file an amended complaint by April 21, 2023.
Issue Before the Court
The court identified authority suggesting that when a party seeks leave to amend during the Rule 11 safe-harbor period, the challenged pleading may be treated as withdrawn or corrected. If so, the court may be unable to decide the Rule 11 motion. The court asked whether the defendants’ motion was properly before it or whether the defendants had to serve the motion again after Gong filed the amended complaint.
Order
The court did not resolve whether the Rule 11 motion was properly before it. Instead, it directed the parties to file letter briefs of no more than three single-spaced pages addressing that question by July 13, 2023. The order was signed by Lewis J. Liman, United States District Judge, and dated July 7, 2023.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.