in Re: David Leroy Beers v. First Connecticut Holding Group, 287 F.3d 279, 288 3d Cir. 2002 . See Also In re…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 10-1105
_____________
IN RE: DAVID LEROY BEERS,
Appellant
_____________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 3-09-cv-01666)
District Judge: Honorable Freda L. Wolfson
_____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 26, 2010
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SLOVITER and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: October 29, 2010)
_____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_____________
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
David Leroy Beers appeals from the order of the District Court, which affirmed
the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of the Appellant’s motion for sanctions against Appellees,
Joel Ackerman and Zucker Goldberg & Ackerman, LLC., in pursuing a claim against
Beers’ estate during bankruptcy proceedings , under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The District
Court upheld the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that Appellees’ conduct did not rise

-- 1 of 2 --

2
to the level required to justify sanctions, concluding that the standard for a fee-shifting
sanction requires a finding of bad faith and that the Bankruptcy Court did not err in its
ruling. We conduct a plenary review “in determining whether the District Court erred in
its disposition of [the] appeal from the Bankruptcy Court”. In re Schaefer Salt Recovery,
Inc., 542 F.3d 90, 97 (3d Cir. 2008).
Beers contends that the District Court erred in concluding that the legal standard
for 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions includes a required element of bad faith. We find no such
error. Both the District Court and the Bankruptcy Court thoroughly reviewed the
applicable law and reasoned appropriately that there is an element of bad faith as part of
the controlling standard. It has been well settled in the Third Circuit that 28 U.S.C. §
1927 requires a finding of four elements for the imposition of sanctions: “(1) multiplied
proceedings; (2) unreasonably and vexatiously; (3) thereby increasing the cost of the
proceedings; (4) with bad faith or with intentional misconduct.” LaSalle Nat’l Bank v.
First Connecticut Holding Group, 287 F.3d 279, 288 (3d Cir. 2002). See Also In re
Prudential Ins. Co. Am. Sales Practice Litig. Agent Actions, 278 F.3d 175, 180 (3d
Cir.2002); Hackman v. Valley Fair, 932 F.2d 239, 242 (3d Cir. 1991); Williams v. Giant
Eagle Markets, Inc., 883 F.2d 1184, 1191 (3rd Cir.1989); Baker Industr. Inc. V.
Cerberus, Ltd., 764 F.2d 204, 208 (3d Cir. 1985). The Bankruptcy Court and the District
Court correctly applied this standard when denying Beers’ motion for sanctions pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 1927.
Accordingly, we will AFFIRM the order of the District Court.

-- 2 of 2 --