Schmitzer

MEMORANDUM *

Meir Westreich, who was Martha Schmitzer’s attorney for her § 1983 lawsuit against Riverside County, appeals the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to Riverside under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse.

We review a district court’s entry of sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for abuse of discretion. 1 Westreich argues that the district court should not have awarded attorney’s fees because his novel legal theory was a good-faith effort to extend the law. Riverside argues that Schmitzer’s claims had little or no chance of success and that Westreich was “reckless” in pursuing Schmitzer’s lawsuit. 2 We need not decide which of these arguments is correct because we conclude that Westreich did not “multiply” the proceedings.

The plain language of § 1927 provides for sanctions only if an attorney “multiplies the proceedings ... unreasonably and vexatiously.” 3 Riverside’s arguments *703 go to the “unreasonable” and “vexatious” elements. Riverside is entitled to a § 1927 fee award, however, only if Westreich also “multiplied” the proceedings.

Westreich’s conduct in this case caused only a single additional…