Sunday, March 31, 2013

Marc J. Randazza, Cody Alviar Research Links

RFC Case Number:T-V12-1657E
Court Case Number:2:12-cv-01657-LRH-GWF
File Date:Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Plaintiff:ViaView, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel:Marc J. Randazza, Ronald D. Green Jr., James M. DeVoy of Randazza Legal Group
Defendant:Eric S. Chanson
Kevin C. Bollaert
Cody Alviar
Roy E. Chanson
Amy L. Chanson
Blue Mist Media
Cause:15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Court:Nevada District Court
Judge:Judge Larry R. Hicks
Referred To: Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr.


Hey Cody Alviar, eMail me at Expose "Marc J. Randazza, Ronald D. Green Jr., James M. DeVoy of Randazza Legal Group".

Marc J. Randazza, Cody Alviar Research Links

"mark randazza, cody alviar" Google Search

Visitor Analysis & System Spec
Referring URL:
Host Name:71-217-36-23.tukw.qwest.netBrowser:IE 9.0
IP Address: — [Label IP Address]Operating System:Win7
Location:Belfair, Washington, United StatesResolution:1463x823
Returning Visits:0Javascript:Enabled
Visit Length:Multiple visits spread over more than one dayISP:Century Link

Navigation Path

29 Mar06:18:07
30 Mar10:49:08
30 Mar10:56:58
30 Mar10:57:44
30 Mar10:58:45
30 Mar10:59:26
30 Mar11:01:32
30 Mar11:06:21
31 Mar01:01:56

Friday, March 29, 2013

"MPEG Lawyers Accused Of Taking Inventions They Reviewed And Patenting Them from the seems-questionable dept"

"Someone anonymous has submitted this story which we're initially pretty skeptical about. At this point, it's all quite one sided, and some more details would be useful.

However, we're posting it here to see if others have more info on the story: "Primary patent reviewer for MPEG, Kenneth Rubenstein and a former IBM patent counsel (and few others) are accused of taking inventions from small inventors and patenting them in their own names, when they were acting as patent counsel for them.

A patent attorney filing for 90 patents in his own name is definitely not ok. Who can you trust if not your own patent lawyer?"

There are some pretty wild claims as you read through the details (death threats and attempted car bombings, included). While MPEG is no saint, it's a huge jump to go from similar patents being filed to claiming that the patent reviewers literally took the invention and patented it in their own names. It's possible -- we're not denying that -- but it seems that it should be backed up with more proof. Considering the space they were in, it's quite possible that multiple people came up with similar ideas -- and, in fact, this could be an argument that these particular patents aren't valid (if multiple people all had the same idea, that suggests it fails the "non-obvious to the skilled practitioner" test). As we said, the details so far are one-sided and not entirely clear -- so we'd love to hear from others with more details."

Source and More Information

Also Check out the Following Links for more information

Warner Bros. Signed Agreements with iViewit Inventors

Warner Bros. igned and Violated Iviewit Non Disclosure Agreements.
Keep in mind that Philip Falcone's company Lightsquared's General Counsel was formerly the Time Warner Inc. General Counsel, and KNOWS of massive shareholder fraud at Time Warner which he FAILED to Disclose.

More Regarding Curtis Lu, then Time Warner Inc. General Counsel and Former Fannie Mae General Counsel.
Eliot Bernstein Conversation with Time Warner Inc. General Counsel Curtis Lu.

More On iViewit, Time Warner, Warner Bros. and Shareholder Fraud and Deceiit

John Calkins, Warner Bros., iViewit

Doug Chey of HP, Formerly of SONY

iViewit Documents

Links to More on the Iviewit - Warner Bros., Time Warner Inc., Jeffrey Bewkes, Curtis Lu and AOL Connection.
SEC Complaint
iViewit Website
My Blog on the Iviewit Stolen Patent
David Colter Emails, John Caulkins Emails, Chuck Dages, and Alan Bell
Warner Bros. Posts on my Iviewit Blog

Links from Iviewit Web Page about Warner Bros.

Monday, March 25, 2013

SaltyDroid, Jason Jones DEFAMES RipOffReport and Accuses them of EXTORTION. Clearly Jason Jones, SaltyDroid KNOW the Definition of EXTORTION by now.

"Interviewer: There's also the extreme of false complaints and sites like Ripoff Report that have been called a variety of things. I don't even know what words I could use without availing myself to a lawsuit. [laughter]
Jason Jones: I'll say it, extortion racket. That's what people accuse them of, of running an extortion racket, because it looks a lot like that."

Odd, Jason Jones acts as if he is AGAINST Extortion Tactics. Yet SaltyDroid, Jason Jones pressured me to STOP my Ninth Circuit appeal and threatened if I did not that he would further pressure me and resort to "other options"

Check out Emails from SaltyDroid, Jason Jones to Blogger Crystal Cox in Dec. 2011

I, Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox have named SaltyDroid, Jason Jones as a Defendant in alleged conspiracy with others in a Racketeering, RICO, Defamation, Harassment, Anti-Trust, Abuse of Process Case.

District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF Case Docket

District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF  RICO / Racketeering / Defamation /
 Harassment / Hate Crime Complaint Filing.,%20COX%20vs.%20Randazza.%20Racketeer/Corrupt%20Organization%20Jurisdiction:%20Diversity%20Case

Define Extortion:  

"The practice of obtaining something, esp. money, through force or threats"

Ya know like saying if you don't give me that Domain Name I will make you an Enemy, then I don't give up the Domain and am attacked from all sides for over a year and sued, threatened and defamed such as Marc Randazza has done.

Or Tonkon Torp Law Firm, WINNING a 2.5 Million Judgement, I don't remove blog posts and David S. Aman, Tonkon Torp Lawyer sends ONE eMail to Big Media (Forbes, New York Times and More) in order to ACCUSE me of the crime of extortion of which I was not on trial for NOR guilty of. An email that was a response to a Legal Threat and one part of 5 eMails between Opposing Counsel in a 10 Million Dollar Lawsuit.

OR when an attorney BLOGGER such as SaltyDroid, Jason Jones emails me and tells me if I don't accept a deal that won't hurt free speech according to him, so I can "Live to fight another Day"... then he will "pressure" me and if that don't work, he will use other "options" as in his email to me. I did go to the Ninth Circuit, I did NOT buckle under his threats and he followed through with his threats in a defamatory blog posts, online hate campaigns and conspiracy to harm me, defame me, harass and threaten me, Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox.

Define Extortion:  

ex·tor·tion  [ik-stawr-shuhn]
1. an act or instance of extorting.

2. Law. the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.

3. oppressive or illegal exaction, as of excessive price or interest: the extortions of usurers.

4. anything extorted.

Plaintiff Crystal L. Cox v. Defendant Marc J. Randazza, Jason Jones, Free Speech Coalition, Ari S. Bass, J. Malcom DeVoy, Ronald D. Green, APPLE, AOL Inc., David S. Aman, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Tracy L. Coenan, Forbes, Kashmir Hill, New York Times, David Carr, Bruce Sewell, Godaddy, WIPO, Liberty Media and More.

Plaintiff:Crystal L Cox
Defendants:AOL Inc., APPLE, David S. Aman , OR, Mark Bennett, Sean Boushie , MT, David W. Brown, Brown, White and Newhouse Law Firm, Martin Cain, John Calkins, David Carr, Bernie Cassidy , MT, Doug Chey, Tracy L. Coenen, Corbin Fisher, Jennifer DeWolf Paine, Steve Dowling, Diana Duke, Dylan Energy, Royce Engstrom , MT, Allen Fagin, Forbes Inc., Free Speech Coalition, Bob Garfield, Godaddy Inc., Ronald D. Green, Greenberg Traurig Law Firm, Scott H Greenfield, Jessica Griffin, Roxanne Grinage, Taylor Kai Groenke , MT, Francis Gurry, Judge Marco Hernandez, Kashmir Hill, HireLyrics, Intel Corp., Jason Jones, Edward KWAKWA, Stephen P. Lamont, Joseph Lecesse, Liberty Capital, Liberty Interactive, Liberty Media Holdings, John C. Malone, Manwin Business Corporation, Greggory Mashberg , NY, Douglas Melamed, Peter L. Michaelson, Carlos Miller, Mobile Streams Inc., Michael Morgan , OR, Motorola Mobility Inc., Motorola Solutions Inc., Multnomah County Sheriffs Office, Leo M. Mulvihill, Mulvihill & Rushie LLC, NPR New York Public Radio, Judge Gloria M. Navarro, New York Times , NY, Obsidian Finance Group, Oregon State Bar Bulletin, Kevin D Padrick , OR, Bob Parsons , AZ, Philly Law Blog,, Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Marc J. Randazza , NV, Randazza Legal Group, Janine Robben , OR, Steven Rodgers, Marshall Ross, Kenneth Rubenstein, Jordan Rushie, Bret Sewell, Bruce Sewell, Daniel Staton , OR, Synaptics, Time Warner Cable Inc., Time Warner Inc., Sean Tompkins, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Matthew M. Triggs, Eric Turkewitz, Turkewitz Law Firm, University of Montana, Tim Vawter, Mark Vena, WIPO, David Wang, Kenneth P. White, Michael Whiteacre, Eric Wilbers, Steven Wilker , OR and XBIZ"

Nature of Suit:Other Statutes - Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Cause:18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Jury Demanded By:Plaintiff

Source of Post

District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF Case Docket

District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF  RICO / Racketeering / Defamation /
 Harassment / Hate Crime Complaint Filing.,%20COX%20vs.%20Randazza.%20Racketeer/Corrupt%20Organization%20Jurisdiction:%20Diversity%20Case

SaltyDroid, Jason Jones asks iViewit Inventor Eliot Bernstein, "What's the deal with you and Cox? Why are her problems your problems?"

WOW. What an ignorant question.

I, as an investigative journalist have been reporting on the iViewit story in great depth for over 3 years. I was sued by one of those I report on Obsidian Finance Group, which was actually one of the smallest corruption issues I was reporting on at the time.  6 months after my rights violating trial was over, Tonkon Torp Lawyer David Aman sued Eliot Bernstein, named him on a Court Docket, 6 MONTHS after the Trial, and now Eliot Bernstein is a named Defendant in that case. This brought Eliot into that case for NO REASON.

Marc Randazza dragged Eliot Bernstein in, after he offered to "conspire" with Eliot Bernstein against me. Marc Randazza did this AFTER he already defamed Eliot through WIPO, in conspiracy with WIPO Panelist Peter L. Michaelson (INTA) by claiming Eliot Bernstein was guilt of extortion, which he is not. 

My "problems" are No Problems. I am an investigative blogger reporting on a story, and the "Corrupt" within the stories have used the courts to attack me and have brought in those I report on to defame them, discredit and harass them. I am Fighting Back in order to EXPOSE corruption in the Courts and Stand with the Victims of that Corruption.

SaltyDroid, Jason Jones threatened me to STOP my Ninth Circuit appeal, or ELSE he would pressure me more and resort to other choices. After this he took photos from my sites online, and he proceeded to post defamatory hate on his blog about me. TO defame me, lie about me, and harass me and seems to think Marc Randazza can do no wrong. Marc Randazza is the one that caused all this ruckus, over a $10 Domain Name, he threatened I either give him or he will make any enemy of me, what happened after I stood up for myself over a domain name is clearly unlawful and unconstitutional.

SaltyDroid, Jason Jones brags about Marc Randazza winning the Glen Beck case, but FAILS to notice that the domain names in my case are that exact case issues, not a trademark violation, yet Marc Randazza took them.  SaltyDroid, Jason Jones brags about Marc Randazza and the Rape Exposing Blogger, I have been exposing rape and corruption for 7 years, and Marc Randazza fights to shut me down, suppress my free speech.

How does SaltyDroid, Jason Jones not get the FACTS of this? And why keep at Eliot Bernstein, and even posting that Eliot Bernstein SUED him when it was ME, Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox who SUED SaltyDroid, Jason Jones in conspiracy in District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF, Crystal L.  Cox V. Randazza and 92 others in a Racketeering, Harassment, Defamation, Anti-Trust, RICO Complaint.

SaltyDroid, Jason Jones is in a lot of LEGAL trouble, as the emails I have from him clearly show he was interfering with my legal issues, he "entrapped" me as he came in as a blogger reporting the story, yet he is an attorney. And then he pressured my on my appeal, then has attacked and defamed me for over a year. All blog posts, emails, and more have been given to the Nevada courts and will be given to the Attorney General.

SO what's the Deal With Bernstein and Cox? Well, Eliot Bernstein is ONE of hundreds and hundreds of victims of corruption in the United States in which I report on. He is a victim of corruption, and I have made his "problems" mine, in order to support the rights of victims of corruption.  Attorneys such as Ronald Green, Marc Randazza, and David Aman in which have brought Eliot to my court cases, have done so in order to discredit the iViewit technology story of which their own clients stand to lose Billions. And to harass, defame, pressure, discredit and harass Eliot Bernstein and Crystal Cox.

So.. SaltyDroid, Jason Jones ... Start Reading, Start getting the Facts, as your Defamatory Attacks are piling up, and your emails to me pressuring me to STOP my Appeal, well it all adds up to .. sorry to say.. to "you going to jail", cuz ya know the {government} only takes action when they are forced to..  Oh, isn't that what you eMailed to me in December of 2011? 

Friday, March 22, 2013

"Nevada Retraction Laws. You Must Give a "Remedy" BEFORE you File a Frivolous SLAPP Lawsuit" YET Nevada Lawyer Marc Randazza SUED me for Millions with Giving no REMEDY. Marc Randazza NEVADA Lawyer is above the law, is a bully and IS A HYPOCRITE.


Nevada Retraction Laws

"Under Nevada law, a defamation plaintiff may recover no more than special damage unless a proper retraction demand has been made on the publisher and a retraction has been refused. In order to provide that protection the retraction must be published within twenty days from receipt of the demand. NRS §41.331, et seq.

What A Retraction Demand Should Contain
Generally, the person making the demand should tell you what was said, why it is defamatory, what the true facts are, and how when and where they want a retraction published. NRS §41.336(2). If the demand does not contain all those elements it may be legally insufficient, but do not treat it as such. If a valid question is raised and you learn that you were in error, go ahead and correct the error and apologize. If the letter does not contain a clear or sufficient demand for retraction your lawyer should contact the person making the demand to clarify what is desired.

What a retraction demand cannot do is require you to phrase the retraction in a certain manner.

As long as you comply with the law's requirements for contents and placement of a retraction you need not use the particular language demanded by a potential plaintiff. NRS §41.337.

What A Retraction Should Contain
A retraction must make it clear that the fact complained of was actually untrue. Simply saying that a person has complained or alleges something to be untrue is insufficient. You should fairly set forth what was said, that it was untrue, and that you apologize for the error.

You should publish the retraction in substantially as conspicuous a manner as the original defamation. Try to publish to the same audience who received the original untruth. If the story was broadcast on the Monday news at 6:00 (unless time constraints forbid it) publish your retraction on the same day and time. If the defamation was in a headline, you may need a headline correcting the mistake followed by an appropriate story.
An example of a retraction might be:

Headline: This Paper Made A Mistake About John Smith
Last Friday we published a story saying John Smith was arrested for illegal possession of a still. The story was in error. We should have reported that John Brown was arrested for the violation. Mr. Smith was not arrested and according to the police is not a suspect or in any way involved in the case. We apologize for any inconvenience or distress our error may have caused to Mr. Smith.

The Lawyer’s Role In Drafting Retractions

When you learn of defamation you should immediately contact counsel. Your lawyer should review any initial correction preceding a demand letter, and should be involved immediately if you receive a retraction demand letter. A legally sufficient retraction is an extremely effective shield against a defamation suit; don't give it up by failing to keep your attorney in the loop."


""When you are served with a Complaint, notify your Editor and your attorney immediately. In the normal course you have only twenty days to answer the Complaint. Nevada Court Rule 12. If an extension is not obtained by your attorney, or an Answer or other response is not filed, a default may be entered against you.

On occasion the opposing party will give no extension and your attorney may need all that twenty days to investigate the case and prepare a response. Accordingly, it is very important that you notify your lawyer immediately.

Once you are aware that a lawsuit may be filed, be careful to preserve evidence. If you are contacted by anyone outside your paper about the case, refuse to discuss it and keep careful notes of what was said. The foundational elements for admitting evidence are essentially the same as those for a good news story. Record what was said, by whom, when, where and how (i.e. by phone, in person etc.).

If you have notes, tapes, video outtakes, etc., be careful to keep them safe. Your attorney will certainly want to review them with you.

In general, as the defendant in a defamation case, you can expect to see a process which proceeds as follows:

1.) Normally, before an Answer is filed, your attorney will file a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. This is an attempt to defeat some or all of the allegations of the Complaint. For example, the Complaint may seek general damages for defamation, which would be barred by an adequate retraction. A Motion to Dismiss would try to get rid of that claim so that it would not even have to be answered.

2.) Once the court rules on the Motion to Dismiss your lawyer will file an Answer. The Answer sets out your admissions and denials of various allegations as well as your affirmative defenses. Affirmative defenses state a reason the Plaintiff cannot recover other than a denial that what he says happened. They may include the truth or substantial truth of what was published, lack of constitutional malice under the First Amendment, consent by the Plaintiff, and a host of other possibilities.

3.) Under certain circumstances the Answer may also set forth counterclaims against the Plaintiff, cross-claims against another defendant, or third party claims against someone outside the lawsuit.

4.) Following the filing of the Answer the parties generally engage in discovery. Since the reputation of the Plaintiff is a direct issue in any defamation case, discovery may be very broad, indeed. In addition, the Plaintiff will try to discover your notes and sources. They are privileged under the Shield Law, but the Nevada Supreme Court has held that you cannot refuse to reveal them and then present them at trial. Las Vegas Sun v. District Court, 104 Nev. 508, 761 P.2d 849 (1988). Accordingly, you and your attorney must make a reasoned decision whether to reveal notes and sources. That may depend on a number of factors including the potential effect on other sources and promises of confidentiality, as well as the general philosophical reluctance to give access to notes.

5.) When your attorney is satisfied with the amount of discovery obtained (often that will focus on the Plaintiffs damages) the next step will often be a Motion for Summary Judgment. That motion asks the court to decide that based on the uncontradicted facts shown by Affidavits and other evidence, you are entitled to win as a matter of law.

6.) If the Motion for Summary Judgment is not granted in its entirety, you will probably proceed to trial. Keep in mind that a trial is often only one step in a process which leads to appeals. Judges may allow Plaintiffs to do things with which Courts of Appeal disagree. Newton v. NBC, 930 F.2d 662 (9th Cir. 1990).

The entire process is long and often stressful and difficult. Try to keep as informed as possible about what's happening. Feel free to call your lawyer and ask questions. Ask her or him to send you copies of everything that's filed in the case. Ask for an overview of the strategy and tactics being used by your attorney. Those are things you are entitled to know, and you will feel better for knowing them. Above all, try to maintain a sense of humor and a sense of perspective. Things could be worse; you could have been charged with criminal libel."

Source of Above Quotes and Lot's More Information

Hey what if the Lawyer is the One Suing?

What if there was no Retraction asked for and YET the Plaintiff WINS Automatically with no retraction requests or First Amendment Adjudication before filing a SLAPP suit, costing his Target. aKa Defendant Time and Money, Stress, and Massive Intellectual Property.

Sues and Yet did not Ask for RETRACTON FIRST, Hmmm....??

Say, If you don't ask for a Retraction, Can you STEAL Massive Domain Names and Delete Massive Blogs and Online Content of your "Target"?  aKa Defendant in your Chilling Speech, SLAPP Lawsuit ?

Nevada Retraction Laws DO Not APPLY to Nevada Lawyers According to the District of NEVADA as the LAWS are simply tossed aside like the parting of the Red Sea for SPECIFIC, Privileged Las Vegas Law Firms."

Originally Posted at

Belo Management Portland Googles " gloria navarro rule 11 sanction"

Visitor Analysis & System Spec
Search Referral:
Host Name:Browser:IE 8.0
IP Address: — [Label IP Address]Operating System:Win7
Location:Portland, Oregon, United StatesResolution:1920x1080
Returning Visits:0Javascript:Enabled
Visit Length:16 secondsISP:Belo Management

Navigation Path

22 Mar10:09:19
(No referring link)
22 Mar10:09:29
(No referring link)
22 Mar10:09:33
(No referring link)
22 Mar10:09:35


Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides that a district court may sanction attorneys or parties who submit pleadings for an improper purpose or that contain frivolous arguments or arguments that have no evidentiary support.

Rule 11. Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to Court; Sanctions

(a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. Each paper shall state the signer's address and telephone number, if any.

Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. An unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party.

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,-

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;

(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

(c) Sanctions. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation. (1) How Initiated.

(A) By Motion. A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). It shall be served as provided in Rule 5, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion (or such other period as the court may prescribe), the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected.

If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees.

(B) On Court's Initiative. On its own initiative, the court may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate subdivision (b) and directing an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated subdivision (b) with respect thereto.

(2) Nature of Sanction; Limitations. A sanction imposed for violation of this rule shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. Subject to the limitations in subparagraphs (A) and (B), the sanction may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation. (A) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of subdivision (b)(2). (B) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded on the court's initiative unless the court issues its order to show cause before a voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party which is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.

(3) Order. When imposing sanctions, the court shall describe the conduct determined to constitute a violation of this rule and explain the basis for the sanction imposed.

(d) Inapplicability to Discovery. Subdivisions (a) through (c) of this rule do not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions that are subject to the provisions of Rules 26 through 37.

Rule 11 was amended effective December 31, 1993. The prior version provides in pertinent part:

Every pleading, motion, and other paper of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record and in the attorney's individual name[.] . . . . [T]he signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by the signer that the signer has read the pleading, motion or other paper; that to the best of the signer's knowledge, information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. . . .

If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable attorney's fee.

Even if the district court finds evidence to be insufficient for purposes of summary judgment, that "does not mean that appellants' claims were factually unfounded for purposes of Rule 11." Stitt v. Williams, 919 F.2d 516, 527 (9th Cir. 1990).

A district court may impose monetary sanctions, in the form of attorneys' fees, upon plaintiffs who file Title VII claims that are "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation." See EEOC v. Bruno's Restaurant, 13 F.3d 285, 287 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421-22 (1978)). However, "[b]ecause Congress intended to `promote the vigorous enforcement of the provisions of Title VII,' a district court must exercise caution in awarding fees to a prevailing defendant in order to avoid discouraging legitimate suits that may not be `airtight.' " Id. (quoting Christiansburg, 434 U.S. at 422); see also EEOC v. Consolidated Serv. Sys., 30 F.3d 58, 59 (7th Cir. 1994) (suggesting that the "frivolous" standard is much more stringent than merely "not substantially justified"). Courts must heed "the Supreme Court's warning in Christiansburg against the `temptation to engage in post hoc reasoning by concluding that, because a plaintiff did not ultimately prevail, his action must have been unreasonable or without foundation.' " Bruno's Restaurant, 13 F.3d at 290 (quoting Christiansburg, 434 U.S. at 421-22); see also Forsberg v. Pacific Northwest Bell Tel. Co., 840 F.2d 1409, 1422 (9th Cir. 1988) (applying the same "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation" standard to request for sanctions under Rule 11 and 42 U.S.C. S 2000e-5(k)).

Kizer v. Children's Learning Ctr., 962 F.2d 608, 613 (7th Cir. 1992) affirms a district court's decision not to impose Rule 11 sanctions on a plaintiff who had failed to make out a prima facie case under Title VII because the claim was not filed with improper motives or inadequate investigation.

Rule 11 sanctions are only available with regard to papers filed with the court, not attorney misconduct. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; see also United Energy Owners Comm., Inc. v. United States Energy Management Systems, Inc., 837 F.2d 356, 364-65 (9th Cir. 1988). (Under pre-'93 rule)"