State Bank of Texas v. Sam Parabia ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 16 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STATE BANK OF TEXAS, a Texas state- No. 21-55955
chartered bank, as successor-in-interest to the
original lender, D.C. No.
3:14-cv-03031-L-DHB
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. MEMORANDUM*
STEPHEN FRANCIS LOPEZ, Counsel for
Defendants Perin Parabia and Sam Parabia,
Appellant,
v.
SAM PARABIA, an individual; PERIN
PARABIA, an individual; FARZIN
MORENA, an individual; CITIZENS
BUSINESS BANK, a California corporation;
AYER CAPITAL ADVISORS, INC., a New
York corporation; DOES, 1 through 10
inclusive,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Argued and Submitted May 10, 2022
Pasadena, California
Before: McKEOWN and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and HELLERSTEIN,** District
Judge.
Attorney Stephen Lopez appeals the district court’s order that Lopez pay the
State Bank of Texas $19,575 as sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The parties
are familiar with the facts, so we do not recount them here.
Section 1927 authorizes monetary sanctions against an attorney who
“multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1927. We agree that Lopez was slow to respond to the district court’s order to
produce the Parabias’ insurance policy, and that some of his objections and motions
failed to recognize prior rulings, causing delays. However, the delays attributable
to Lopez were not so extensive as to amount to an “unreasonabl[e] and vexatious[]”
multiplication of proceedings. Section 1927 should not be interpreted to deter
zealous advocacy. See In re Yagman, 796 F.2d 1165, 1182, amended by, 803 F.2d
1085 (9th Cir. 1986). Lopez’s filings were supported by citations to pertinent legal
authority and had colorable legal merit. See Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp.,
929 F.2d 1358, 1362 (9th Cir. 1990) (en banc) (defining a frivolous finding as one
“that is both baseless and made without a reasonable and competent inquiry”). In
**
The Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
2
reversing the sanctions, we do not countenance Lopez’s approach and tactics.
REVERSED.
3