Sanctions For Multiplying Proceedings

29 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Optyl Eyewear Fashion Int'l Corp. v. Style Cos., Ltd.
  760 F.2d 1045· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-20 ·cited 57×
  The court held that an attorney's motion to disqualify opposing counsel, based on the attorney potentially being a witness, was meritless and brought in bad faith, justifying sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The court also affirmed the reasonableness of the fee award and granted
• United States v. Associated Convalescent Enters., Inc.
  766 F.2d 1342· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-23 ·cited 36×
  The court held that an attorney who fails to disclose a potential conflict of interest, leading to trial delay and disqualification, can be sanctioned under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for multiplying proceedings unreasonably and vexatiously.
• Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  809 F.2d 419· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board erred by failing to address the central issue of whether the average difficulty of work had decreased, which would justify grade reductions under the collective bargaining agreement.
• Est. OF John Marvin Blas v. Paul Winkler, M.D.
  792 F.2d 858· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-19 ·cited 17×
  The court held that a motion to reconsider, raising legitimate legal arguments and lacking bad faith, does not constitute an unreasonable and vexatious multiplication of proceedings warranting sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
• Browning v. Stephen J. Kramer, M.D.
  931 F.2d 340· 5th Cir.· 1991-05-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an award of attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 against a party (Dr. Kramer) was improper, and remanded for specific findings regarding an award against an attorney (Ms. Kramer) for vexatious multiplication of proceedings.
• Ins. Benefit Administrators, Inc. v. Martin
  871 F.2d 1354· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-18 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the $3,000 sanction for frivolous pleading but reversed and remanded the larger $31,000 sanction due to the district court's failure to specify the legal authority for each imposed penalty.
• The Hilmon Co. (V.I.) Inc. v. Hyatt Int'l
  899 F.2d 250· 3d Cir.· 1990-03-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appeal was frivolous and awarded attorney's fees and costs to the appellees under Fed. R.App.P. 38, to be paid by appellant's counsel.
• Tucker v. CBE Grp., Inc.
  710 F. Supp. 2d 1301· M.D. Fla.· 2010-05-05 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the debt collector's calls, which were clearly intended for the plaintiff's daughter and did not falsely represent the debt, did not violate the FDCPA, and granted summary judgment for the defendant.
• Paris Kotsilieris v. Hymen P. Chalmers
  966 F.2d 1181· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the attorneys' negligent failure to make a timely jury demand could be considered sanctionable under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 as extreme negligence, the awarded amount of $5,546.25 was excessive due to a lack of specificity in the fee petition and the district c
• Williams Enters., Inc. v. The Sherman R. Smoot Co.
  938 F.2d 230· D.C. Cir.· 1991-07-09 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's damage awards except for the cost of capital, which was remanded for recalculation, and sanctioned Williams's counsel for procedural misconduct.
• The Laitram Corp. & Intralox, Inc. v. The Cambridge Wire Cloth Co.
  919 F.2d 1579· Fed. Cir.· 1990-11-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a summary judgment of non-infringement must be vacated when no accused product was before the court, and the case must be remanded to determine if an accused product existed when the complaint was filed, also sanctioning counsel for their conduct.
• United States v. Carley
  783 F.2d 341· 2d Cir.· 1986-02-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant's repeated assertion of frivolous tax arguments warrants sanctions, including double costs on appeal and attorney's fees for the government's expenses incurred due to his vexatious conduct.
• Jenkins v. Tatem
  795 F.2d 112· D.C. Cir.· 1986-07-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's continued excessive filings and litigation strategy were frivolous and warranted sanctions, including referral to the disciplinary committee.
• O'Neal v. Am. Shaman Franchise Sys., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-27
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to sanction plaintiff's attorney for filing duplicative and vexatious motions, holding him jointly and severally liable for attorney's fees, and admonished him for failing to uphold professional standards.
• Perryman v. Kiem
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-03-29
  The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's order imposing monetary and non-monetary sanctions against the appellant for unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying proceedings.
• Stratos v. Aig Prop. Cas. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-09-12
  The court held that sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 or its inherent powers were unwarranted because the plaintiff's actions, while prolonging litigation and violating court orders, did not rise to the level of objective bad faith required for such sanctions.
• Schwartz v. Adp, LLC.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-03-21
  The court recommended denying ADP's request for attorney's fees and sanctions, finding the attorney's conduct did not meet the high standard for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and that ADP was not entitled to fees on the ERISA claim.
• Swinford v. 360 Booth Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-11-21
  The court denied defendants' motion for sanctions against plaintiff's counsel, finding the conduct was not egregious or in bad faith.
• Fox v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-07-18
  The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff's counsel's conduct was so egregious as to warrant sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
• JQ Adams & Sons, Inc v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-07-08
  The court denied the defendant's motion for sanctions and stated it would address the motion to preclude expert testimony separately.
• Hultgren v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-03-11
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, overruling the plaintiff's objections and affirming the Commissioner's decision to deny Social Security benefits.
• Stann v. The First Liberty Ins. Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-03-08
  The court held that an attorney's repeated filing of duplicative motions, despite prior warnings, unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied proceedings, warranting sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
• Shen Yi, LLC v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-01-28
  The court denied the motion for sanctions and attorney's fees, finding that the alleged sanctionable conduct occurred in state court prior to removal and did not constitute unreasonable or vexatious multiplication of proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 or an abuse of the court's i
• Martinez v. Cherry Bekaert, LLP
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-09-28
  The court denied the defendant's motion to strike claims for punitive and emotional distress damages, and denied the plaintiff's motion for sanctions.
• Omnipol v. Multinational Def. Servs.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-07-13
  The court held that while sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 were not warranted, defendants were entitled to attorney's fees and costs for defending against plaintiffs' civil theft and RICO claims.
• Eglise Baptiste Bethanie De Ft. Lauderdale, Inc. v. The Seminole Tribe of Fla.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-02-24
  The court denied plaintiffs' motions for a deposition to perpetuate testimony and for an injunction pending appeal, and granted sanctions in part against plaintiffs' counsel.
• Allen v. Robert F. Deluca, M.D., P.A.
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-10-29
  The court held that Plaintiff's motion for sanctions against Defendants' Counsel was baseless and denied it, finding no evidence of bad faith or unreasonable conduct.
• United States ex rel. Bumbury v. Med-Care Diabetic & Med. Supplies, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2015-05-01
  The court denied defendants' motion for sanctions, finding that the law firm's conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith or recklessness required for sanctions.
• O'Rear v. Am. Fam. Life Assurance Co. of Columbus, Inc.
  123 F.R.D. 290· M.D. Fla.· 1992-10-15
  The court held that an attorney's repeated failure to cure deficiencies in pleadings, despite prior warnings and concessions, constitutes unreasonably multiplying proceedings, warranting sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.