UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 

JOYCE COLLINS 

Civil Action No. 15-11679 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, Honorable Mark A. Goldsmith 

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford 

v. 

 

VASAN DESHIKACHAR, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

___________________________/ 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR COSTS AND SANCTIONS [R. 21, 22] 

I. INTRODUCTION 

On March 17, 2016, Plaintiff-Appellee Joyce Collins filed a motion for 

costs in the amount of $1,785.84, and for sanction in the amount of 

$11,408.50, representing $7,837.50 for the 28.5 hours of attorney time 

spent responding to Deshikachar’s frivolous appeal and $3,751 for double 

the costs expended in responding to the appeal. [R. 21; R. 22]. The 

Honorable Mark A. Goldsmith referred both motions to the undersigned for 

Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). [R. 

26]. The Court RECOMMENDS that both motions be GRANTED.

In re: Vasan Deshikachar, 

2:15-cv-11679-MAG-EAS Doc # 28 Filed 12/29/16 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 623
2 

II. BACKGROUND 

Proceeding pro se, Deshikachar filed this action appealing the 

disposition of an adversary proceeding filed against him in United States 

Bankruptcy Court by Collins. [R. 1]. This Court issued a report and 

recommendation (R&R) to affirm the decision of the bankruptcy court, and 

Judge Goldsmith adopted that recommendation. [R. 9, 13]. Deshikachar 

has appealed this judgment to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. [R. 14]. 

III. ANALYSIS 

Under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8021(a)(2), costs may 

be taxed against the appellant in an appeal to a district court “if a judgment, 

order, or decree is affirmed.” See In re Sheidler, No. 15-8011, 2016 WL 

1179268, at *1, n. 1 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2016). The bankruptcy 

decision was affirmed and Collins timely filed a bill of costs, with an 

itemized and verified bill of costs, satisfying the requirements under Rule 

8021(d). [R. 21]. The Court thus recommends that Collins’s motion for 

costs be granted. 

Rule 8020(a) provides that, if the district court “determines that an 

appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the 

court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and 

single or double costs to the appellee.” See also Reese v. Reese (In re 

2:15-cv-11679-MAG-EAS Doc # 28 Filed 12/29/16 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 624
3 

Reese), 485 F. App’x 32, 35 (6th Cir. 2012). Sanctions are warranted only 

in the rare cases in which an appeal is made for an improper purpose, such 

as harassment, delay or sheer obstinacy, or when the appeal is obviously 

baseless. Id. This is such a rare case. 

In the R&R, this Court opined that Deshikachar has attempted to 

manipulate the court system, and that “he continues to unreasonably 

obstruct Collins’s ability to find closure from this nine-year-old case despite 

his agreements to the 2013 consent judgment and the 2015 bankruptcy 

settlement. The Court views Deshikachar’s appeal as frivolous and 

contumacious . . . .” [R. 9, PgID 432]. Shortly after the R&R was issued, 

Deshikachar confirmed in an email to Collins’s attorney that his intent was 

to manipulate the court system, writing: 

You need to get off your high horse and try to resolve this 

matter. Otherwise I can guarantee you your victory will not only 

be pyrrhic your firm will spend more for no benefit of anybody. I 

dont [sic] care if you ask and win a million bucks. I have had 

tens of judgement [sic] over the past 3 decades that has [sic] 

not been collected a single penny. 

[R. 11-13, PgID 548]. Since Deshikachar’s appeal was frivolous, 

contumacious and made for the improper purpose of obstructing Collins’s 

ability to collect her judgment, he should be sanctioned. 

2:15-cv-11679-MAG-EAS Doc # 28 Filed 12/29/16 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 625
4 

III. CONCLUSION 

The Court RECOMMENDS GRANTING Collins’ motion for Bill of 

Costs [R. 21], and motion for sanctions against Deshikachar in the form of 

Costs and Attorney Fees [R. 22]; ORDERING, that Collins costs of 

$1,785.84 be taxed against Deshikachar pursuant to Rule 8021(a)(2); 

ORDERING, pursuant to Rule 8020, that Deshikachar reimburse Collins 

$11,408.50 for the expenses she incurred from attorney time spent 

responding to his frivolous appeal and for double the costs expended in 

responding to his frivolous appeal. 

 s/Elizabeth A. Stafford 

 ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Dated: December 29, 2016 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS 

 Either party to this action may object to and seek review of this 

Report and Recommendation, but must act within fourteen days of service 

of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any 

further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. 

Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections which raise some issues but 

2:15-cv-11679-MAG-EAS Doc # 28 Filed 12/29/16 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 626
5 

fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all objections that party 

might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Secretary of 

HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers 

Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). A copy of any objection 

must be served upon this Magistrate Judge. E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2).

 Each objection must be labeled as “Objection #1,” “Objection #2,” 

etc., and must specify precisely the provision of this Report and 

Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than fourteen days after 

service of objections, the non-objecting party must file a response to 

the objections, specifically addressing each issue raised in the objections in 

the same order and labeled as “Response to Objection #1,” “Response to 

Objection #2,” etc. The response must be concise and proportionate in 

length and complexity to the objections, but there is otherwise no page 

limitation. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it 

may rule without awaiting the response. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF 

System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on December 29, 2016. 

 s/Marlena Williams 

 MARLENA WILLIAMS 

 Case Manager 

2:15-cv-11679-MAG-EAS Doc # 28 Filed 12/29/16 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 627