King v. Whitmer CIVIL 20-13134 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 25, 2021) At least 21 days before submitting a Rule 11 motion to a court, the movant must serve “[t]he motion” on the party against whom sanctions are sought and the motion “must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(2). As indicated above, the City served a copy of its Rule 11 motion on Plaintiffs' counsel at least 21 days before it was filed.23 Plaintiffs argue that the City failed to comply with this “safe harbor” provision because the brief in support of the motion, which was filed later, was not included. (See ECF No. 95 at Pg ID 4118-19; ECF No. 161 at Pg ID 5805-06.) According to Plaintiffs, the City's motion “makes only conclusory statements and blanket assertions regarding the alleged violations of Rule 11 and fails altogether to ‘describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b).'” (ECF No. 95 at Pg ID 4119 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(2)).) 1997) (“It is not sufficient for a party to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to . . . put flesh on its bones.”) In his next filing on behalf of Hagerstrom, Haller, Johnson, Kleinhendler, Powell, and Rohl, Campbell raises two new arguments: (i) the City did not mail a copy of the safe harbor materials to the correct address for Johnson, and (ii) in a footnote of the safe harbor motion, concurrence was only sought from Powell. (ECF No. 167 at Pg ID 6679 n.1 (citing ECF No. 164-4 at Pg ID 6409 n.1).) Newman picked up the same refrain about her address in her supplemental brief. (See ECF No. 168 at Pg ID 7608-09.) Wood said nothing in his supplemental brief to challenge the address where he was served; however, in his response to the City's supplemental brief, he claimed for the first time that the zip code used by the City 23 With each new brief filed and opportunity when mailing the safe harbor materials to to argue before the Court, Plaintiffs' him was incorrect. (See ECF No. 170 at Pg attorneys raise a new argument for why ID 6801.) However, the addresses used by they were not adequately served with the the City for each of these attorneys, City's Safe Harbor Letter and Safe Harbor including Wood's zip code (see ECF No. Motion. First, in their original response to 161-3 at Pg ID 6058), were the exact the motion, Plaintiffs' counsel argued only addresses provided by Plaintiffs in their that the notice served upon them was filings (see, e.g., ECF No. 1 at Pg ID 75; deficient because it was not accompanied ECF No. 6 at Pg ID 957). The belated by the City's more detailed brief. (See ECF argument regarding footnote 1 of the City's No. 95 at Pg ID 4119.) Then, at the July 12 Safe Harbor Motion is frivolous as the Safe motion hearing, Wood and Newman Harbor Letter was addressed to all counsel. suddenly claimed that they had not been (ECF No. 1613 at Pg ID 6058.) served at all with the City's safe harbor materials. (ECF No. 157 at Pg ID 5317, 5362.) In the supplemental brief filed by Campbell on behalf of Plaintiffs' counsel Hagerstrom, Haller, Johnson, Kleinhendler, Powell, and Rohl, counsel insinuates that the Rule 11 motion was not properly served pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as required under Rule 11(c)(2). (See ECF No. 161 at Pg ID 5805 n.6.) No specific argument is made, however, as to how service did not comply with Rule 5. (Id.); see McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 995-96 (6th Cir. Rule 11, however, requires service of only “[t]he motion” to trigger the commencement of the 21day safe harbor period. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(2) (“The motion must be served ....”); see also Star Mark Mgmt. v. Koon Chun Hing Kee Soy & Sauce Factory, Ltd., 682 F.3d 170, 176 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing Ideal Instruments, Inc. v. Rivard Instruments, Inc., 243 F.R.D. 322, 339 (N.D. Iowa 2007)) (finding that the defendant's delivery of its sanctions motion met the procedural requirements of the safe harbor provision of Rule 11(c)(2) despite not serving at that time supporting affidavits or a memorandum of law); Burbidge 16