Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
No. 05-1016
RON HUNT,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FRANCIS LEE,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
RITZ CABARET, a/k/a Tracy, Incorporated,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-02-2523-WDQ)
Submitted:
Decided:
January 5, 2006
PER CURIAM:
Francis Lee appeals the district courts order denying
his petition for attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1988 (2000) and 28 U.S.C. 1927 (2000).
Ron
entertainment
clubs.
Hunt
and
Francis
establishments
Lee
We affirm.
were
otherwise
owners
known
as
of
adult
gentlemens
these
discussions
began,
Lee
owned
the
club.
While
matched
Eichelbergers
buyers
premium).
In
demands
the
($1.6
course
million
of
their
and
six
percent
correspondence,
suggested that both Lee and Eichelberger retained some control over
the property, or at the very least, over the solicitation of offers
to purchase the Ritz Cabaret.
- 2 -
to
negotiate
with
Eichelberger.
Hunt
alleges
the
contractual
capacity
to
sell
- 3 -
the
property
due
to
the
forfeiture.
file
dispositive
motions
by
October
2003.
At
the
A district courts
Johnson v.
See
defendants
are
plaintiffs,
even
to
be
though
treated
the
differently
statutory
from
language
is
- 4 -
Corp., 719 F.2d 63, 68 n.7 (4th Cir. 1983), there are varying
degrees of frivolousness.
finding
of
bad
faith
is
necessary
1382 n.25 (4th Cir. 1991). Section 1927 provides: Any attorney or
other person admitted to conduct cases . . . who so multiplies the
proceedings
in
any
case
unreasonably
and
vexatiously
may
be
- 5 -
28 U.S.C. 1927.
allows
district
courts
latitude
in
could
discovery.
have
conducted
more
Clearly, Hunts
comprehensive
pre-filing
Given these
before
the
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 6 -