In re Franklin Wireless Corp. Derivative Litigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ) Case No.: 21-CV-1837-BEN-MSB ) 12 ) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ In re FRANKLIN WIRELESS CORP. ) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’

DERIVATIVE LITIGATION ) FEES AND

14 ) ORDER GRANTING ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ) RETAX COSTS 16 ) ) )

19 Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees 20 and Expenses (ECF No. 166) and Motion to Retax Costs. (ECF No. 175). The 21 Court heard oral argument on May 28, 2025. Having considered the Parties’ 22 submission, relevant legal authority, and the record in this matter, the Court rules 23 as follows:

I. Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

25 Defendants seek attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, arguing that 26 Plaintiffs unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied proceedings. To impose 27 sanctions under section 1927, the Court must find that counsel acted with bad faith or with recklessness. T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F. 2d 626, 638 (9th Cir. 1987); Fink v.…