In Re Radha Ramana Murty Narumanchi, 3:11-cv-01127

Narumanchi and Dev Narumanchi filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition in 1997; case was discharged and closed in 1999.
The case was reopened in 2008 based on newly discovered assets from a class action settlement.
In 2009 Abdelsayed filed a proof of claim for $18,000 arising from a prior Connecticut Superior Court judgment.
Narumanchi objected to Abdelsayed’s claim in 2009 on grounds that Abdelsayed had already been paid in a malpractice settlement with Abdelsayed’s attorney, Hill.
In 2010 Abdelsayed moved to vacate the objection order; proceedings followed, including a contested hearing in 2011.
Narumanchi filed a pro se motion for sanctions in 2011 seeking Rule 9011 sanctions, §105(a) sanctions, §1927 sanctions, and referral to the U.S. Attorney; the Bankruptcy Court denied all relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether safe harbor under Rule 9011 was satisfied	Narumanchi asserts compliance with 9011(c) via notice to Abdelsayed via Small's 2010 letter.	Abdelsayed argues Narumanchi failed to serve a copy of the sanctions motion 21 days prior to filing.	Safe harbor not satisfied; sanctions denied on this ground.
Whether Rule 9011 sanctions were warranted given the record	Gildea’s claim and Abdelsayed’s vacate motion were filed in good faith based on disputed settlements.	Record shows possible improper purpose or frivolous content, justifying sanctions.	Court did not find clear error or bad faith; no sanctions awarded.
Whether § 105(a) sanctions were appropriate	§ 105(a) empowers equitable relief to preserve rights under the Code.	§ 105(a) does not create a private right of action and should not be used to sanction absent other Code support.	Sanctions under § 105(a) not applicable; analysis under Rule 9011 governs.
Whether § 1927 sanctions were appropriate	Abdelsayed and counsel’s conduct multiplied proceedings unreasonably.	No clear showing of bad faith or improper purpose.	Insufficient showing of bad faith; § 1927 sanctions denied.
Whether the case should be referred to the U.S. Attorney under 18 U.S.C. § 3057	Court should report possible bankruptcy-law violations to the U.S. Attorney for investigation.	No basis for criminal referral; discretion resides in the Bankruptcy Judge.	Judge did not abuse discretion; no referral to U.S. Attorney.

Denton v. Hyman (In re Hyman), 502 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing bankruptcy sanctions and related questions)
In re Highgate Equities, Ltd., 279 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2002) (Rule 9011 standards in bankruptcy context)
In re Cohoes Indus. Terminal, 931 F.2d 222 (2d Cir. 1991) (broad articulation of Rule 11/Sanctions in bankruptcy)
Hadges v. Yonkers Racing Corp., 48 F.3d 1320 (2d Cir. 1995) (safe harbor concept and sanctions standards relevance)
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Interversiones Errazuriz Limitada, 374 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) (bad faith standard for § 1927 sanctions)
In re Pratt, 524 F.3d 580 (5th Cir. 2008) (service requirement for 9011 safe harbor material)
In re Stevens, 2001 WL 34093946 (Bankr. D. Vt. 2001) (procedural safe harbor discussion (WL not allowed? included for context))
In re Gorshtein, 285 B.R. 118 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002) (objective standard for sanctions bad faith)