29 C.F.R. § 2200.32

Signing of pleadings and motions

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Pleadings and motions shall be signed by the filing party or by the party's representative. The signature of a representative constitutes a representation by the representative that the representative is authorized to represent the party or parties on whose behalf the pleading is filed. The signature of a representative or party also constitutes a certificate by the representative or party that the representative or party has read the pleading, motion, or other document, that to the best of the representative's or party's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not included for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. If a pleading, motion, or other document is signed in violation of this rule, such signing party or its representative shall be subject to the sanctions set forth in § 2200.101 or § 2200.104. A signature by a party representative constitutes a representation by the representative that the representative understands that the rules and orders of the Commission and its Judges apply equally to attorney and non-attorney representatives.

[84 FR 14558, Apr. 10, 2019, as amended at 87 FR 8949, Feb. 17, 2022]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1973–1999 · leading case: Lynn Martin, Sec'y of Labor v. Pav-Saver Mfg. Co. & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 933 F.2d 528 (7th Cir. 1991).
Lynn Martin, Sec'y of Labor v. Pav-Saver Mfg. Co. & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 933 F.2d 528 (7th Cir. 1991). “Commission Rule 32, 29 C.F.R. § 2200.32 (1986). That rule has since been amended to allow the Secretary fifteen days.”
Peter J. Brennan, Sec'y of Labor v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n & Bill Echols Trucking Co., 487 F.2d 230 (5th Cir. 1973). “After considerable procedural maneuvering, 4 the Commission issued a Supplemental Order on January 26, 1973, holding that Echols’ September 5 letter was a sufficient notice of contest, and therefore that the Secretary was required under 29 C.F.R. § 2200.32 to transmit the notice…”
Tri-State Steel Constr. Co. v. Herman, 164 F.3d 973 (6th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “11 were not available in proceedings before the Commission because such sanctions were not incorporated into Commission Rule 32, 29 C.F.R. § 2200.32 , and were barred by sovereign immunity.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.