The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the imposition of sanctions against an attorney for simultaneously moving for an injunction against arbitration and actively opposing the other party's motion to compel.

In Parrott v. Corley, No. 06-2333, 2008 WL 227332 (6th Cir. Jan. 28, 2008), a dispute arose between an author and her publisher. The parties had executed a contract for services containing an arbitration agreement.

Attorney Kreucher, as the author's counsel, filed a complaint against the publisher for breach of contract and other causes of action. The publisher responded with a motion to compel arbitration, which Kreucher contested by directly opposing the motion and by pursuing his own motion for a preliminary injunction against arbitration. Later, the author voluntarily dismissed her claims.

The district court acknowledged the voluntary dismissal but still imposed sanctions against Kreucher for frivolous opposition to the motion to compel.

The Court determined that the sanctions were within the district court's discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, a provision allowing the imposition of sanctions against an attorney who "multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously." To the Court, this term included situations "where an attorney knows or reasonably should know that a claim pursued is frivolous, or that his or her litigation tactics will needlessly obstruct the litigation of non-frivolous claims." See Jones v. Cont'l Corp., 789 F.2d 1225, 1232 (6th Cir. 1986).

The Court found Kreucher's simultaneous pursuit of a motion for preliminary injunction against arbitration and opposition to the publisher's motion to compel to be conduct clearly falling within the scope of § 1927. To the Court, the district court was well within its discretion to infer that the voluntary dismissal of the author's claims on the eve of the court hearing was additional evidence that Kreucher knew or should have known that resisting arbitration was frivolous.