The Court finds that Defendant's testimony is not credible. Finally, the Court finds that Defendants deliberately and improperly delayed the trial. For its wrongful conduct, the Court finds the Defendants' action is sanctionable. In sanctioning defendants, the trial court relied on its inherent authority to sanction litigant misconduct. It also noted that court's have inherent power to sanction the bad faith or vexatious use of collateral proceedings.
Defendant recognizes that trial courts generally have power to sanction litigant misconduct.
We disagree that in circumstances such as those present, a trial court has no authority to sanction a defendant for engaging in dilatory tactics aimed at interfering with a state court proceeding. This is an issue of first impression and, we note that there is no law to support preemption of a state court's right to sanction a defendant for engaging in misconduct in an underlying state law case. Our reading of Koffman leads to a contrary conclusion. In Koffman, the plaintiff filed an action against the defendant in district court after several involuntary bankruptcy petitions against the defendant were dismissed by the bankruptcy court. The defendant filed counterclaims for civil conspiracy, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution arising out of the plaintiff's conduct while the bankruptcy was proceeding.