Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01290/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01290-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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 to be suitable for decision without

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS ENGRAHM, )

) 02:04-cv-1290-GEB-GGH

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER*

v. )

)

COUNTY OF COLUSA; COUNTY OF COLUSA )

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; JOHN )

S. WRYSINSKI, individually and in )

his capacity as Director of County )

of Colusa Dept. of Public Works, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Defendants move for sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel

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

the motion.

 Section 1927 provides in relevant part: “Any attorney . . .

who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and

vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the

excess costs, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such

conduct.” Therefore, Defendants must establish that Counsel engaged

in “unreasonable” and “vexatious” conduct that “multipli[ed] the

proceedings.” See B.K.B v. Maui Police Dep’t, 276 F.3d 1091, 1107

(9th Cir. 2002).

Case 2:04-cv-01290-GEB-GGH Document 154 Filed 06/15/06 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

Defendants contend Counsel “actually knew several [of

Plaintiff’s] claims were meritless as early as December 5, 2005,” but

“[C]ounsel maintained [these] meritless claims . . . in order to

increase the risk and costs to Defendants and extort a nuisance-value

settlement.” (Mot. at 1, 9.) Since Counsel did not rebut this point

in his opposition, the record indicates Counsel refused to dismiss

admittedly meritless and abandoned claims in order to enhance the

chances of settlement. But the issue is whether this refusal has been

shown to justify the imposition of sanctions under section 1927. 

Defendants’ argue Counsel’s conduct was like that of

plaintiff’s counsel in Edwards v. General Motors Corp., 153 F.3d 242

(5th Cir. 1998), and is therefore sanctionable. However, in Edwards,

the Fifth Circuit found that the record was “littered with indications

that [the plaintiff’s counsel] abandoned suit but willfully required

GM to continue to defend it . . . .” Id. at 246 (5th Cir. 1998)

(emphasis added). That is not the situation here; although Counsel

may have abandoned some claims, he did not abandon the entire action. 

Here, Defendants have not shown that any proceeding subsequent to

December 5, 2005, justifies the finding that the litigation

constituted an unreasonable multiplication of the proceedings. 

Since Counsel’s refusal to dismiss meritless claims has not

been shown to have “multiplie[d] the proceedings,” the motion is

denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 15, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01290-GEB-GGH Document 154 Filed 06/15/06 Page 2 of 2