Rule tolerates a certain margin of error by parties. Specifically, the Rule emphasizes a duty of candor by subjecting litigants to potential sanctions for “insisting upon a position after it is no longer tenable” but generally provides for “protection against sanctions if [litigants] withdraw or correct contentions after a potential violation [of the Rule] is called to their attention.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 (Notes of Advisory Committee on 1993 Amendments). In fact, parties have a duty under Rule 11 not to persist with a contention that lacks evidentiary support once it is clear that no such support exists. Id. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims retains jurisdiction to impose Rule 11 sanctions even after resolution of the case on the merits. See Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 384, 110 S.Ct. 2447 (<HOLDING>). Like the imposition of costs, attorneys’
holding that a district court may impose sanctions for abuse of judicial process pursuant to rule 11 even after it is determined that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claims holding that a motion for rule 11 sanctions is dispositive holding that a district court had jurisdiction to impose rule 11 sanctions regardless of the existence of subjectmatter jurisdiction holding that a plaintiffs voluntary dismissal of a complaint does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to entertain a motion for sanctions under rule 11 holding that trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for rule 11 sanctions without adequate explanation