SARAH S. VANCE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is plaintiff's motion for sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. For the reasons stated, the Court denies the motion for sanctions.
I. Background
On May 25, 1967, Shell Oil Company and Joseph F. Wegmann, Jr. entered into a lease agreement of immovable property located at 4400 Clearview Parkway in Metairie, Louisiana, under which Wegmann leased the property to Shell. Plaintiff, Motiva, is the assignee of Shell's interest in the lease, while defendants, Joseph F. Wegmann III and Susan W. Collins, are the successors-in-interest to the original lessor. The lease provided an option to buy the property for the price of $175,000, at any point during the contract. In 1967, when the contract was entered, the property was appraised at a value of $105,600. In 1969, the parties amended the lease to include an additional adjacent parcel of land and the entire property was appraised at $148,300. Under the amended lease, the rental payments increased but the terms of the original leases were otherwise ratified and confirmed. The property was improved with a functioning gasoline station.
Plaintiff exercised the purchase option by sending letters to defendants dated May 1, 2000 and October 11, 2000, asserting that plaintiff wished to exercise Shell's option under the lease to purchase the property for $175,000. On August 20, 2000, the property was appraised at the price of $595,000. Defendants refused to honor the option.
Plaintiff filed suit demanding specific performance under the lease and its option to buy. Defendants claimed that the defense of lesion beyond moiety applied to the option and therefore, they were not required to sell the property for the $175,000 option price. On January 18, 2001, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. On March 12, 2001, the Court also denied defendants' motion to amend or alter the order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. The Court treated this motion as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). On March 22, 2001, the Court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff.
Defendants then filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, for reconsideration of the Court's denial of the motion to amend or alter the granting of summary judgment, and have filed a post-judgment motion for reconsideration and alteration. The Court denied these motions in an order dated April 27, 2001. Plaintiff now moves for sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
II. Sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927
Plaintiff moves for sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 against defendants for filing numerous motions after the entry of judgment. Section 1927 provides:
Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.
The decision to impose sanctions under § 1927 falls within the district court's sound discretion, reviewed on appeal only for abuse of that discretion. See Travelers Ins. Co. v. St. Jude Hosp. of Kenner, La., Inc., 38 F.3d 1414, 1417 (5th Cir. 1994). Before imposing sanctions under section 1927, the Court must determine that the offending attorney's multiplication of the proceedings was both."unreasonable" and "vexatious." See Id. at 1416 (citing Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Conner, 20 F.3d 1376, 1384 (5th Cir. 1994)). The latter requirement is met by evidence of recklessness, bad faith, or improper motive. See Id. (citing Hague v. Royse City, Tex., 939 F.2d 1249, 1256 (5th Cir. 1991)). This Court previously granted summary judgment f or plaintiff, denied defendants' motion for reconsideration, and entered judgment. The summary judgment and reconsideration order adequately addressed the issues at hand; however defendants attempted to reargue the same meritless arguments through the filing of three other motions. Although the Court finds that defendants' counsel multiplied the proceedings in this matter unreasonably, it cannot state that there has been a showing of "recklessness, bad faith, or improper motive." Accordingly, the Court denies the motion for sanctions.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated, the Court denies plaintiff's motion for sanctions.