Committee saying: To stress the seriousness of a motion for sanctions and to define precisely the conduct claimed to violate the rule, the revision provides that the “safe harbor” period, begins to run only upon service of the motion. In most cases, however, counsel should be expected to give informal notice to the other party, whether in person or by a telephone call or letter, of a potential violation before proceeding to prepare and serve a Rule 11 motion. Id. at 710. The court concluded, “It would therefore wrench both the language and purpose of the amendment to the Rule to permit an informal warning to substitute for service of a motion.” Id.; see also McKenzie v. Berggren, 212 F.R.D. 512 (E.D. Michigan, 2003); but see Nisenbaum v. Milwaukee Co., 333 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2003) (<HOLDING>). The policy reasons behind requiring service
holding that a contractor who had substantially complied with the building specifications substantially performed holding that rule 11 applied to a letter sent with the intent to influence the court with respect to injunctive relief holding defendants were entitled to a decision on the merits on rule 11 sanctions where they substantially complied with rule 11c1a by sending a letter rather than serving a motion holding that a warning letter substantially complied with rule 11 by alerting nisenbaum to the problem and giving him more than twentyone days to desist holding that insured substantially complied with the manner of changing the beneficiary as required by the policy