Chand v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 77

ORDER DENYING r 39 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Experian Information Solutions, Inc.. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 5/26/17. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/26/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

SALESHNI CHAND,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

vs.

CASE NO. 16-cv-06311-YGR
ORDER DENYING MOTION OF DEFENDANT
EXPERIAN FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
Re: Dkt. No. 39

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.,
ET AL.,
Defendants.
Defendant Experian filed a motion for attorneys’ fees on January 24, 2017, arguing that

12

fees should be awarded pursuant to either 28 U.S.C. § 1927 or the Court’s inherent authority as a

13

result of having to respond to the flawed complaint even after notifying plaintiff’s counsel of the

14

problems. (Dkt. No. 39.) The Court, on March 30, 2017, Court issued a tentative order indicating

15

that it was inclined to grant the request for attorneys’ fees. Counsel for plaintiff submitted a

16

supplemental filing addressing the motion for attorneys’ fees and requested a hearing. Experian

17
18
19
20

file a response. On May 10, 2017, the Court held a hearing on the motion.
The Court having considered the arguments of the parties and the pleading at issue in the
motion, DENIES the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. The Court is persuaded that plaintiff’s counsel’s
errors in the drafting of the complaint which identified the incorrect chapter of the bankruptcy
code in certain paragraphs, while demonstrating a lack of care, do not constitute the kind of willful

21
improper conduct that would demonstrate recklessness or bad faith sufficient to warrant
22
23
24

imposition of sanctions under 28 U.S.C. section 1927. See Fink v. Gomez, 239 F. 3d 989, 992-94
(9th Cir. 2001).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27
28

Dated: May 26, 2017
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE