Meyer Knopf v. Elite Moving Sys., 677 F. App'x 252

Knopf sued Elite over damaged belongings; after initial service issues, the case proceeded to court-supervised mediation on December 1, 2014 and the parties reached a settlement worksheet: Elite would pay $14,000 and Knopf would release claims.
Elite emailed settlement documents and requested signatures and payee info beginning December 4, 2014; Sandweiss (Knopf’s counsel) failed to respond to multiple emails and later to the court’s electronically filed Motion to Compel Settlement.
Elite filed a Motion to Compel Settlement and sought sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927; the district court granted the motion on May 28, 2015, ordered execution of the release, and sanctioned Sandweiss $855 for fees incurred in filing the motion.
Sandweiss later obtained a narrow exclusion for Remington Movers in the release, signed the documents in June 2015, and filed objections to the sanctions; the district court denied relief and Sandweiss appealed.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed: it held § 1927 sanctions were appropriate because Sandweiss’s prolonged, largely unexplained non-responsiveness objectively multiplied proceedings beyond negligence, and the $855 fee award was reasonable.

Issue	Sandweiss's Argument	Elite's Argument	Held
Whether § 1927 sanctions were appropriate for counsel’s delay	Delay was at most negligence; any refusal to sign stemmed from client’s objection re: release language (Remington Movers) not bad faith	Sandweiss’s repeated non-responses and failure to follow up objectively multiplied proceedings and forced Elite to move to compel	Affirmed: § 1927 sanctions appropriate; standard is objective and may be met without subjective bad faith when conduct exceeds negligence
Whether movant violated Local Rule 7.1(a) by not obtaining concurrence	The motion to sanction failed to show concurrence or reasonable efforts to confer, so it was procedurally defective	Elite sought concurrence and stated it could not obtain it; procedural challenge was not raised below	Waived on appeal; court did not consider it because Sandweiss failed to raise it in district court
Whether the $855 award for 3.8 hours was reasonable	Amount was excessive for the work claimed	Time and tasks (drafting motion, research, exhibits) justified 3.8 hours	Affirmed as reasonable; district court did not abuse discretion
Whether the appeal was frivolous such that Fed. R. App. P. 38 sanctions should be imposed	(Implicit) appeal presented non-frivolous arguments	Elite sought Rule 38 sanctions for frivolous appeal	Denied: no separate motion was filed and the court did not deem the appeal frivolous

Shepherd v. Wellman, 313 F.3d 963 (6th Cir. 2002) (standard of review for § 1927 sanctions)
Red Carpet Studios Div. of Source Advantage, Ltd. v. Sater, 465 F.3d 642 (6th Cir. 2006) (§ 1927 sanctions for objectively unreasonable conduct that causes added expense)
In re Ruben, 825 F.2d 977 (6th Cir. 1987) (§ 1927 sanctions framework)
Rentz v. Dynasty Apparel Indus., Inc., 556 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 2009) (§ 1927 requires more than negligence but less than subjective bad faith)
Hogan v. Jacobson, 823 F.3d 872 (6th Cir. 2016) (sanctions may be imposed without finding subjective bad faith)
Olivieri v. Thompson, 803 F.2d 1265 (2d Cir. 1986) (contrasting view that § 1927 requires subjective bad faith; discussed but not followed)