Van Dyke v. Retzlaff
Filing
237
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Award Expenses and Attorney's Fees as a Sanction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (Dkt. 230 ) is DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery (Dkt. 233 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 2/2/2021. (baf, )
Case 4:18-cv-00247-ALM Document 237 Filed 02/02/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 5804
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
JASON LEE VAN DYKE
v.
THOMAS RETZLAFF, a/k/a DEAN
ANDERSON, d/b/a VIA VIEW FILES LLC,
and VIA VIEW FILES
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:18-CV-247
Judge Mazzant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Thomas Retzlaff’s Motion to Award Expenses and
Attorney’s Fees as a Sanction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (Dkt. #230). Having considered the Motion
and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that it should be denied.
BACKGROUND
This now-closed case concerned “protracted and spiteful litigation” between Plaintiff Jason
Lee Van Dyke and Thomas Retzlaff. Van Dyke v. Retzlaff, No. 4:18-CV-247, 2020 WL 6557715,
at *1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2020). On November 24, 2020, pursuant to the Court’s November 9,
2020 memorandum opinion and order, the case was dismissed without prejudice (Dkt. #228). On
December 11, 2020, Defendant filed his Motion to Award Expenses and Attorney’s Fees as a
Sanction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (Dkt. #230), currently before the Court. On December 15, 2020,
Plaintiff filed his response (Dkt. #235).
LEGAL STANDARD
When “[a]ny attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United
States or any Territory thereof . . . multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and
vexatiously,” courts “may” require such individual “to satisfy personally the excess costs,
expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.” 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
Case 4:18-cv-00247-ALM Document 237 Filed 02/02/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 5805
To award attorneys’ fees under this statute, courts must find “evidence of bad faith, improper
motive or reckless disregard of the duty owed to the Court.” Edwards v. Gen. Motors Corp., 153
F.3d 242, 246 (5th Cir. 1998). The phrase “unreasonably and vexatiously” describes conduct that
is objectively
harassing or annoying, or evinces the intentional or reckless pursuit of a claim,
defense or position that is or should be known by the lawyer to be unwarranted in
fact or law or is advanced for the primary purpose of obstructing the orderly process
of the litigation.
In re W. Fid. Mktg., Inc., No. 4:01-MC-0020-A, 2001 WL 34664165, at *22 (N.D. Tex. June 26,
2001). “[P]unishment under § 1927 is ‘sparingly applied’ . . . [because] sanctions under [this
statute] are ‘punitive in nature and require clear and convincing evidence’ that sanctions are
justified.” Laws. Title Ins. Corp. v. Doubletree Partners, L.P., 739 F.3d 848, 872 (5th Cir. 2014)
(first quoting Meadowbriar Home for Child., Inc. v. Gunn, 81 F.3d 521, 535 (5th Cir. 1996); and
then quoting Bryant v. Mil. Dep’t of Miss., 597 F.3d 678, 694 (5th Cir. 2010)). “Indeed, should a
court find that sanctions are warranted under § 1927, the court must then ‘make detailed factual
findings’ supporting its conclusion.” True Believers Ink 2, Corp. v. Russell Brands, LLC, No.
4:18-CV-00432, 2020 WL 2113600, at *15 (E.D. Tex. May 4, 2020) (quoting Laws. Title Ins.
Corp., 739 F.3d at 871).
ANALYSIS
Defendant asserts that the Court should order Plaintiff to pay Defendant attorneys’ fees
under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 because of Plaintiff’s “‘unreasonable and vexatious’ multiplication of the
proceedings” (Dkt. #230 at p. 15). After reviewing the Motion, the response, the record, and the
applicable law, the Court does not find the clear and convincing evidence necessary to award
Defendant the relief he seeks.
2
Case 4:18-cv-00247-ALM Document 237 Filed 02/02/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 5806
.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Award Expenses and Attorney’s
Fees as a Sanction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (Dkt. #230) is DENIED.
It is FURTHER
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery (Dkt. #233) is DENIED AS MOOT.
SIGNED this 2nd day of February, 2021.
___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?