This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P represented a group of workers at Earthgrains (D). P and two other lawyers filed a class action lawsuit against D alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and it also asserted fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of D in the closing of its Charlotte bakery. D removed the suit to federal court. D denied the allegations of racial discrimination, and moved for summary judgment in that the plaintiffs were bound to arbitrate, they failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination, and they had failed to rebut D's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for closing its Charlotte bakery. Summary judgment was granted. The court, sua sponte, directed P to show cause why Rule 11 sanctions were not warranted. A stay was granted for an appeal. P then filed another lawsuit against D in state court. It alleged the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation. D filed in federal court seeking an injunction asserting the second lawsuit was a collateral attack on the summary judgment. The second suit was voluntarily dismissed. The summary judgment was affirmed. P then filed another complaint against D in state court alleging the tort of negligent misrepresentation. D promptly removed to the Western District of North Carolina. The district court concluded that federal jurisdiction was lacking, and it remanded the Third Lawsuit to state court. For over two years no action was taken with respect to the Show Cause Order. D filed a motion in district court seeking Rule 11 sanctions against P and her co-counsel. The court barred P from the practice of law in the Western District of North Carolina for a period of five years. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.