Greene v. Alan Waxler Group Charter Services, LLC

Filing 199

ORDER Denying 185 Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions re Discovery as to the portion requesting sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1927. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 06/26/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
ROBERT GREENE,

7
8

2:09-CV-748 JCM (NJK)

Plaintiff,

9

v.

10

ALAN WAXLER GROUP CHARTER
SERVICES, LLC dba AWG CHARTER
SERVICES, et al.,

11
12

Defendants.

13
14
15

ORDER

16

Presently before the court is the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions, (doc. # 185), due to

17

vexatious and unreasonable multiplication of proceedings. The defendants responded in opposition,

18

(doc. # 190), and the plaintiffs replied, (doc. # 194).

19

I.

Background

20

This motion arises out of a wage-and-hour collective action lawsuit brought by current and

21

former limousine drivers against their employer, Alan Waxler Group, Inc. Magistrate Judge Koppe

22

recently entered an order denying the plaintiffs’ request for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of

23

Civil Procedure 37. (Doc. # 197). At issue is whether the defendants should be sanctioned under 28

24

U.S.C section 1927 for unreasonably multiplying the proceedings in this action. The plaintiffs are

25

seeking attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred in order to oppose the defendants’ motions to reopen

26

discovery, to amend their answer, to reconsider summary judgment, to decertify the class, and to

27

reconsider the magistrate judge’s sanction order. (Doc. # 185).

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

II.

Legal Standard

2

Section 1927 authorizes the imposition of sanctions upon any attorney who “multiplies the

3

proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously.” 28 U.S.C. § 1927. A district court's order

4

must contain “specific factual support for [a] finding of vexatiousness . . . [in order] to sustain the

5

imposition of section 1927 sanctions.” Blumberg v. Gates, 152 F. App’x 652, 653-54 (9th Cir. 2005).

6

(“[D]istrict courts are nonetheless required to develop detailed factual findings regarding

7

unreasonability, vexatiousness and bad faith.”); Primus Auto. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Batarse, 115 F.3d

8

644, 649 (9th Cir. 1997) (“The district court has broad fact-finding powers with respect to sanctions,

9

and its findings warrant great deference, but [the appellate court] must know to what it defers.”)

10

Imposition of costs and fees under § 1927 may be made only on a finding that the attorney

11

acted “recklessly or in bad faith.” See, e.g., United States v. Associated Convalescent Enters., 766

12

F.2d 1342, 1346 (9th Cir. 1985). The Ninth Circuit has “emphasize[d] that only conduct rising to

13

the level of maliciousness, vexatiousness or bad faith warrants section 1927 sanctions;

14

negligence-even gross negligence-is not enough.” Blumberg, 152 F. App’x at 654; see also Estate

15

of Blas v. Winkler, 792 F.2d 858, 860 (9th Cir. 1986) (“[B]ad faith is present when an attorney

16

knowingly or recklessly raises a frivolous argument, or argues a meritorious claim for the purpose

17

of harassing an opponent.”). Therefore without specific evidence of maliciousness, vexatiousness,

18

or bad faith, the court must decline to impose sanctions. Furthermore, “notice and a hearing should

19

precede imposition of a sanction under § 1927.” T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors

20

Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 638 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing United States v. Blodgett, 709 F.2d 608, 610).

21

III.

Discussion

22

In the instant case, the plaintiffs point to numerous motions filed by the defendants, but make

23

no specific allegations and point to no evidence demonstrating malice, bad faith, or intent to harass.

24

Therefore, the plaintiffs' arguments are unpersuasive. Indeed, the fact that one of the motions in

25

question was granted by the court undermines the plaintiffs’ claim that the motions were vexatious

26

or unreasonable. (See doc. # 163).

27

...

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

IV.

Conclusion

2

Accordingly,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the portion of the

4

plaintiffs’ motion, (doc. # 185), requesting sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1927 be, and the

5

same hereby is, DENIED.

6

DATED June 26, 2014.

7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-