and even assuming the new evidence concerning the birth of plaintiffs’ counsel's child warranted the conclusion that the complaint was not filed for an improper purpose, sanctions would nonetheless be appropriate here because plaintiffs’ RICO and Sherman Act claims were not warranted by the facts or by existing law or any good faith extension of that law. This is so because under Rule 11 a claim’s lack of factual or legal basis and plaintiffs’ improper purpose in filing a claim are independent and alternative bases for awarding sanctions. See Rule 11(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. 38 . See CNA Fin. Corp. v. Brown, 162 F.3d 1334, 1338 (11th Cir.1998) (considering settlement offers under Rule 408 in denying a motion for sanctions); Eisenberg v. Univ. of New Mexico, 936 F.2d 1131, 1134 (10th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Ausherman v. Bank of America Corp., 212
recognizing exceptions in rule 408 as applying to settlement agreements and the occurrence of settlement talks holding that evidence of settlement may be considered under rule 408 when reviewing a motion for sanctions holding that a motion for rule 11 sanctions is dispositive holding that reviewing court may consider trial evidence in reviewing denial of motion to suppress holding that defendant has failed to provide any support for the novel argument that plaintiff should be denied fees because in defendants view plaintiffs counsel acted unreasonably in failing to accept defendants settlement offer and that consideration of settlement discussions on a motion for attorneys fees is barred by federal rule of evidence 408