2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-29-2010

In Re: David Leroy Beers

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-1105

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: David Leroy Beers " (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 355.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/355
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ 

No. 10-1105

_____________

 

IN RE: DAVID LEROY BEERS,

 Appellant 

_____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 3-09-cv-01666)

District Judge: Honorable Freda L. Wolfson

_____________ 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

October 26, 2010

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SLOVITER and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.

(Opinion Filed: October 29, 2010)

_____________

OPINION OF THE COURT 

_____________

RENDELL, Circuit Judge.

David Leroy Beers appeals from the order of the District Court, which affirmed

the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of the Appellant’s motion for sanctions against Appellees, 

Joel Ackerman and Zucker Goldberg & Ackerman, LLC., in pursuing a claim against 

Beers’ estate during bankruptcy proceedings , under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The District 

Court upheld the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that Appellees’ conduct did not rise 
2

to the level required to justify sanctions, concluding that the standard for a fee-shifting 

sanction requires a finding of bad faith and that the Bankruptcy Court did not err in its 

ruling. We conduct a plenary review “in determining whether the District Court erred in 

its disposition of [the] appeal from the Bankruptcy Court”. In re Schaefer Salt Recovery, 

Inc., 542 F.3d 90, 97 (3d Cir. 2008). 

Beers contends that the District Court erred in concluding that the legal standard 

for 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions includes a required element of bad faith. We find no such 

error. Both the District Court and the Bankruptcy Court thoroughly reviewed the

applicable law and reasoned appropriately that there is an element of bad faith as part of

the controlling standard. It has been well settled in the Third Circuit that 28 U.S.C. § 

1927 requires a finding of four elements for the imposition of sanctions: “(1) multiplied 

proceedings; (2) unreasonably and vexatiously; (3) thereby increasing the cost of the 

proceedings; (4) with bad faith or with intentional misconduct.” LaSalle Nat’l Bank v. 

First Connecticut Holding Group, 287 F.3d 279, 288 (3d Cir. 2002). See Also In re 

Prudential Ins. Co. Am. Sales Practice Litig. Agent Actions, 278 F.3d 175, 180 (3d 

Cir.2002); Hackman v. Valley Fair, 932 F.2d 239, 242 (3d Cir. 1991); Williams v. Giant 

Eagle Markets, Inc., 883 F.2d 1184, 1191 (3rd Cir.1989); Baker Industr. Inc. V. 

Cerberus, Ltd., 764 F.2d 204, 208 (3d Cir. 1985). The Bankruptcy Court and the District 

Court correctly applied this standard when denying Beers’ motion for sanctions pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. 1927. 

Accordingly, we will AFFIRM the order of the District Court.