to comply with the strict procedural requirement of Rule 11(c)(1)(A).”); see also Gordon v. Unifund CCR Partners, 345 F.3d 1028, 1030 (8th Cir.2003) (denying Rule 11 sanctions because the defendant sent informal letters to the plaintiff instead of a copy of the motion for sanctions). 26 . Cadle cites an unpublished circuit court decision and several district court decisions, none of which are persuasive. Compare Barker v. Bank One, 156 F.3d 1228, 1998 WL 466437, at *2 (6th Cir.1998) (unpublished) (technical noncompliance allowed because defendants did serve plaintiff motion for sanctions twenty-one days prior to filing with the court and sent the plaintiff warning letters prior to the final judgment in the case) with Ridder v. City of Springfield, 109 F.3d 288, 297 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Compare Cardillo v. Cardillo, 360 F.Supp.2d
holding that sanctions under rule 11 are unavailable unless the motion for sanctions is served on the opposing party for the full twentyone day safe harbor period before it is filed with or presented to the court holding that a motion for rule 37 sanctions is dispositive holding under third circuit law that denial of rule 11 sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that rule 11 sanctions are not appropriate when a motion is filed in part for a legitimate purpose even when the motion includes certain evidence which is assertedly presented for an improper purpose holding that a motion for rule 11 sanctions is dispositive