pleading is not being presented for an improper purpose; (2) the “legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument” to change existing law; and (3) “the factual contentions have evidentiary support or ... will likely have evidentiary support after ... discovery.” Once the court determines, after giving the offending party notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court “may impose an appropriate sanction” on the offending party based on (1) a motion filed by the non-offending party subsequent to the passage of the 21-day safe harbor pursuant to Rule 11(c)(2), or (2) the court’s own initiative pursuant to Rule 11(c)(3). Fed. R.Civ.P. 11(c); see Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 613 (11th Cir.1997) (per cu-riam) (<HOLDING>). “The purpose of Rule 11 sanctions is to
holding that a motion for rule 11 sanctions is dispositive holding that due process requires notice and an opportunity to respond before imposition of rule 11 sanctions holding that the imposition of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that an opportunity for trial de novo affords defendants all due process to which they are entitled no constitutional mandate that defendant have notice and opportunity to respond at administrative level if all available defenses may be presented to a competent tribunal before exaction of the obligation holding that procedural due process requires adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard