the motion or proof of claim on the basis of lack of standing or failure to name the real party in interest, as may be appropriate, as has been done on numerous occasions across the country. In this case, the Plaintiff failed to exercise that remedy. Furthermore, in the event that the Plaintiff or any prospective class member believed that Wells Fargo’s or any of the Wells Fargo Entities’ alleged repeated misrepresentations in the Stay Motion warranted sanctions, BR 9011 and § 105(a) provide appropriate remedies. See e.g. Nosek v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company (In re Nosek), 386 B.R. 374 (Bankr. D.Mass.2008), Aff'd in part, vac’d in part sub. nom 406 B.R. 434 (D.Mass.2009) and In re Parsley, 384 B.R. 138 (Bankr. S.D.Tex.2008). See also In re Cassell, 254 B.R. 687, 691 (6th Cir. BAP 2000) (<HOLDING>). The Plaintiff has not sought sanctions
holding that  1447c applies to counsel holding that the fourteenth amendment only applies to state action holding that br 9011 applies to proofs of claim holding that fourteenth amendment only applies to state action holding that the law of the state of incorporation applies