Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01969/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01969-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 This motion was determined suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY MCIVER, ) 02:04-cv-1969-GEB-GGH

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER 

*

)

RED LION INNS OPERATING, LP, a )

Limited Partnership; WEST DOUGHBOY )

LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability )

Company, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff moves for sanctions against Defendants’ counsel

(“Counsel”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (“section 1927") because “despite

numerous phone calls, letters, drafts, and promises made,

. . . [C]ounsel still has not yet provided an executed settlement

agreement.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 1.) Counsel did not file any opposition

to the motion.

“Section 1927 provides that an attorney who ‘so multiplies

the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be

required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs,

expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such

Case 2:04-cv-01969-GEB-GGH Document 22 Filed 05/11/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

conduct.’” T.W. Elec. Service, Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors

Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 638 (9th Cir. 1987). “Pursuant to Section 1927,

three substantial requirements must be met before [sanctions] may be

imposed: (1) a multiplication of proceedings by an attorney; (2) by

conduct that can be characterized as unreasonable and vexatious; and

(3) a resulting increase in the cost of the proceedings.” Campana v.

Muir, 615 F. Supp. 871, 874 (D.C. Pa. 1985). 

The first requirement, a multiplication of the proceedings,

“involves an assessment of the impact that the attorney’s conduct had

on court processes.” Id.; T.W. Elec. Service, 809 F.2d at 638

(stating Section 1927 is “concerned only with limiting the abuse of

court processes”). Plaintiff contends Counsel has “needlessly and

recklessly multiplied the proceedings by making and breaking numerous

promises about status of the settlement paperwork, about his

commitments to send provisions and so forth, and causing numerous

unwarranted phone calls, letters and this motion.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 5.) 

However, Plaintiff has not demonstrated how the conduct complained of

has impacted court processes. Therefore, the motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 11, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01969-GEB-GGH Document 22 Filed 05/11/06 Page 2 of 2