2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

10-29-2010 

# I n R e: D a v id Le r o y B ee rs
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 10-1105

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" I n R e: D a v id L e r o y Be e r s " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 355. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_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### NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT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 2 6, 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 th e order of the District Court , which affirm ed the Bankruptcy Cour t’s den ial 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 proceedin gs , under 28 U.S.C. § 1927

. T he D istrict 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 th at th e Bankruptcy Court did not err in its ruling. W e 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 t he District C ourt and the Bankruptcy Court thoro ughly reviewed th e 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 th e Third Circuit that 28 U.S.C. § 1927 requires a finding of four el ements 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, 2 88 (3d Cir. 2002). See Also In re Prudential Ins. Co. Am. Sales Practic e 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. Accord ingly, we will AFFIRM the order of the District Court.