Lester, et al v. Percudani, et al

Filing 572

ORDER denying defts' motion for for attorneys' fees & sanctions 560 . (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 11/27/13.(ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EDDIE and SHARON LESTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs

:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:01-CV-1182
:
:
(Chief Judge Conner)
v.
:
:
GENE PERCUDANI, et al.,
:
Defendants
:
-------------------------------------------------------PABLO ACRE, et al.,
Plaintiffs
v.
CHASE MANHATTAN
MORTGAGE CORP., et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:04-CV-0832
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 27th day of November, 2013, upon consideration of
defendants’ motion (Case No. 3:01-CV-1182, Doc. 560) for attorneys’ fees and
sanctions, wherein defendants Gene Percudani, Chapel Creek Homes, Inc.,
Raintree Homes, Inc., Homes by Vintage, Inc., Y-Rent, Inc., and Chapel Creek
Mortgage Banker, Inc. (hereinafter “defendants”) seek attorneys’ fees of $39,114.73
and sanctions of double that amount, and the court recognizing that it has the
inherent power to impose sanctions, such as attorneys’ fees, when a party has
unreasonably multiplied proceedings or otherwise acted in “bad faith, vexatiously,
wantonly, or for oppressive reasons,” Hobbs & Co. v. Am. Investors Mgmt., Inc., 576
F.2d 29, 35 n.18 (3d Cir. 1978); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1927; Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.,
501 U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991), and the court determining that such an award is not

warranted in the instant matter,1 it is hereby ORDERED that defendants’ motion
(Case No. 3:01-CV-1182, Doc. 560) is DENIED.

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

1

Defendants assert that plaintiffs acted in bad faith by representing in their
motion to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement (Case No. 3:01-CV-1182, Doc.
515; Case No. 1:04-CV-0832, Doc. 383) that they had obtained all of the required
bankruptcy orders and releases. Defendants point to this court’s recent
memorandum and order (Case No. 3:01-CV-1182, Docs. 554, 555; Case No. 1:04-CV0832, Docs. 410, 411), which directs plaintiffs to provide a few new releases and
additional bankruptcy orders prior to final enforcement of the settlement
agreement, as evidence that plaintiffs acted in bad faith. However, the court only
determined that a few new releases and additional bankruptcy orders were
necessary after a rather detailed review of the particular plaintiff’s unique
circumstances. The court ultimately determined that plaintiffs’ position was
incorrect, but that determination does not equate to a finding that plaintiffs’
position was taken in bad faith or for the purpose of multiplying the proceedings.