Sanctions Awarded For Unreasonable and Vexatious Litigation

 In the case of Chicka v. Hearing Health PA., LLC, No. 2:21-CV-1405 (W. D. Pa. Feb. 23, 2023 Horan, J.), the court found that a Plaintiff’s attorney was subject to sanctions for unreasonable and vexatious litigation where the Plaintiff’s attorney unnecessarily delayed the proceedings for over a year as the case remained mired in the pleadings given that defense counsel was required to prepare multiple Motions to Dismiss to address repeated substantive and procedural errors that should have been easily remedied through simple cooperation.   

The court noted that, under 28 U.S.C. §1927, an attorney who multiples the proceedings unreasonably and vexatiously may be personally liable for the resulting costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees incurred.   

The court found that the four (4) elements required to be shown for sanctions were met in this case, including the elements of (1) multiplied proceedings; (2) unreasonable and vexatious conduct; (3) increased costs of the proceedings; and (4) bad faith or intentional misconduct.   

The court noted that it would schedule a separate hearing to determine the amount of sanctions to be awarded.   

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions.”  Pennsylvania Law Weekly (March 23, 2023). 

Award of Attorney's Fees Granted Under 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 2503

In the case of Mariotti v. Mariotti Building Products, Inc., No. 12-CV-545 (C.P. Lacka. Co. July 23, 2020 Nealon, J.), the court addressed a Motion for Sanctions and a request for the defense for the recovery of counsel fees under 42 Pa. C.S.A. §2503 in a business dispute matter.

The court noted that, under §2503(7) of the Judicial Code, the court has the discretion to award attorney’s fees “as a sanction against another participant for dilatory, obdurate, vexatious conduct during the pendency of a matter.”

It was also noted that, under §2503(9) of the Judicial Code, a court may award attorney’s fees against any party whose conduct was “arbitrary, vexatious, or in bad faith.”

After reviewing the definitions of all of the terms identified in the above Judicial Code provisions, the court found that the Plaintiff’s conduct during the course of the litigation warranted the entry of an award of attorney’s fees. As such, the defense motion in this regard was granted and a hearing was set up for a later date to determine the amount of such award.

This Opinion offers insight on the rarely addressed provisions of the sections noted in terms of request for attorney’s fees based upon improper conduct by an opposing party during the course of a litigation.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.