Branch Banking and Trust Company v. Angino Law Firm, P.C. et al

Filing 62

ORDER denying defts' motion 40 for sanctions. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 7/2/18. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST
COMPANY,
Plaintiff
v.
ANGINO LAW FIRM, P.C., et al.,
Defendants

BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST
COMPANY,
Plaintiff
v.
ANGINO LAW FIRM, P.C., et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-712

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-713

(Chief Judge Conner)

(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 2nd day of July, 2018, upon consideration of the motion (Doc.
41)1 for sanctions filed by defendants in the above-captioned actions pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, wherein defendants
request that the court deny plaintiff’s claim for attorneys’ fees and order plaintiff’s
counsel to pay monetary sanctions for “grossly misrepresenting” same, (Doc. 41 at
9), and plaintiff’s response (Doc. 47) in opposition, and the court observing that Rule

1

Defendants filed an identical motion in each of the above-captioned matters.
For ease of reference, the court cites only to docket entries in the first-filed action,
Branch Banking and Trust Co. v. Angino Law Firm, P.C., et al., No. 1:16-CV-712.

11 sanctions are warranted only when the filing party has acted in an “objectively
unreasonable manner,” Fellheimer, Eichen & Braverman, P.C. v. Charter Techs.,
Inc., 57 F.3d 1215, 1225 (3d Cir. 1995), and the court further observing that to impose
sanctions under Section 1927, a court must find an attorney has (1) multiplied
proceedings; (2) in an unreasonable and vexatious manner; (3) thereby increasing
the costs of the litigation; and (4) by engaging in bad faith or intentional
misconduct, In re Prosser, 777 F.3d 154, 161 (3d Cir. 2015) (citing In re Prudential
Ins. Co. Am. Sales Practice Litig. Agent Actions, 278 F.3d 175, 188 (3d Cir. 2002)
(quotations omitted)), and the court finding that the circumstances of plaintiff’s
request for attorneys’ fees sub judice provide no bases for the imposition of
sanctions under either Rule 11 or Section 1927, it is hereby ORDERED that
defendants’ motion (Doc. 41) is DENIED.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania