Rojas v. Town of Cicero, Illinois

In section 1983 action alleging that defendant terminated plaintiff due to his support of political opponent of defendant’s Town President, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion for sanctions under 18 USC section 1927, based on claim that plaintiff’s attorney had filed many post-verdict motions in action that was settled for less than half of initial verdict in favor of plaintiff, where Dist. Ct. could properly have concluded that loss to plaintiff and his counsel of $400,000 apiece when settlement replaced jury’s verdict was sanction enough. However, Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s request for sanctions under Rule 26(g)(3) based on failure of plaintiff’s counsel to report to Dist. Ct. fact that plaintiff had filed bankruptcy petition during pendency of instant section 1983 claim, since: (1) plaintiff’s counsel did not contest finding that her conduct violated Rule 26(g)(3); and (2) said finding mandated that some sort of monetary or other sanction be imposed