Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Soi Quay Hoang v. Worldwide Asset Purchasing

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


February 24, 2011

SOI QUAY HOANG, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WORLDWIDE ASSET PURCHASING, LLC, AND FREEDMAN, ANSELMO,
LINDBERG & RAPPE, LLC,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge:

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants' petition for supplemental attorneys' fees (Doc. 51) along with a declaration in support thereof (Doc. 52). Previously when the Court entered the order denying Plaintiff's motion to set aside judgment (Doc. 50), we reserved ruling on Defendants' request for further fees and costs in responding to the motion to set aside judgment. We now GRANT Defendants' petition (Doc. 51).

Plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Lim, in Plaintiff's reply to Defendants' request for sanctions (Doc. 36), acknowledged that he was prepared to accept "whatever sanctions this Court wishe[d] to impose upon him." Despite making this statement, Mr. Lim filed a motion to set aside judgment (Doc. 46), rehashing the same arguments that he had previously made to this Court. See Doc. 50. This motion was unreasonable and vexatious in light of the facts in this case and Mr. Lim's statement to the Court to accept "whatever sanctions this Court wishe[d] to impose on him." This motion further multiplied the proceedings in this case and caused the Court and the Defendants further costs and expenses.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and for the reasons previously in the memorandum and order granting Defendant's request for sanctions (Doc. 45) and the order denying Plaintiff's motion to set aside judgment (Doc. 50), the Court now GRANTS Defendants' petition for supplement attorneys' fees (Doc. 51) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 ("Any attorney . . . who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct."). We find this to be consistent with the proposition that an "expense incurred on appeal by a party defending the district's award of sanctions is normally recoverable as an expenses incurred as a result of the sanctioned conduct below." Ordower v. Feldman, 826 F.2d 1569, 1576 (7th Cir. 1987). "Otherwise, the cost of defending the sanctions on appeal will often offset the award obtained." Id. Having reviewed Defendants' attorney's declaration in support of Defendants' petition for supplemental attorneys' fees and the attachment thereto, we find the time spent responding and the amounts charged to be reasonable. Therefore, the Court ORDERS Mr. Lim to pay Defendants' additional attorneys fees in the amount of $1,761.50.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

David R. Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court

2011.02.24 10:04:23 -06'00'

20110224

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.