Issue: May a claim for sanctions brought under 28 U.S.C. 1927 be based on an attorney’s conduct in connection with the complaint?
| Area of Law: | Litigation & Procedure |
| Keywords: | Sanctions; Attorney's conduct relating to complaint; Improper filing or tactics employed |
| Jurisdiction: | Federal |
| Cited Cases: | 78 F.3d 431; 796 F.2d 1165 |
| Cited Statutes: | 28 U.S.C. § 1927 |
| Date: | 02/01/2001 |
To the extent parties may seek sanctions against one another pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for alleged failures to conduct a reasonable evidentiary investigation or legal research before filing a Complaint or for commencing a case for an improper purpose, the motion must be denied. Section 1927 applies only to improper filings made or tactics employed after the Complaint has been filed. See In re Keegan Management Co. Secs. Litig., 78 F.3d 431, 435 (9th Cir. 1996).
The Ninth Circuit recently summarized the law in this area, emphatically rejecting a Defendants’ argument that § 1927 authorizes sanctions for conduct in connection with filing a complaint.
Because the section authorizes sanctions only for the “multipli[cation of] proceedings,” it applies only to unnecessary filings and tactics once a lawsuit has begun. We have twice expressly held that § 1927 cannot be applied to an initial pleading. See Zaldivar, 780 F.2d at 831 (under § 1927, “the multiplication of proceedings is punished, thus placing initial pleadings beyond” the section’s reach) (emphasis in original); Matter of Yagman, 796 F.2d 1165, 1187 (9th Cir.) (“Section 1927 does not apply to initial pleadings, since it addresses only the multiplication of proceedings. It is only possible to multiply or prolong proceedings after the complaint is filed.”), amended, 803 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1986). In case […]
margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;tab-stops:-72.05pt -.5in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 310.5pt 5.0in 5.5in right 6.0in 6.5in left 7.0in 7.5in 8.0in 8.5in 9.0in 9.5in 10.0in 10.5in’>