King v. Whitmer CIVIL 20-13134 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 25, 2021) further explained, “[t]hat changed things, and [then] the Supreme Court's determination did have life.” (Id.) clearly informing Plaintiffs and their counsel that their legal claims were weak and lacked factual support. In other words, Plaintiffs' attorneys maintain that this lawsuit was no longer moot after December 14 because three Plaintiffs subjectively believed that they had become electors. The attorneys cite no authority supporting the notion that an individual's “[personal] opinion” that he or she is an elector is sufficient to support the legal position that the individual is in fact an elector. Of course, such a belief is contrary to how electors are appointed in Michigan. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.42. In any event, Plaintiffs' attorneys fail to provide a rational explanation for why this event breathed life into this action. Moreover, prior to the July 12 hearing, Plaintiffs never told anyone about this newly-formed subjective belief. They did not tell this Court that the case would no longer be moot after December 8, despite telling this Court the exact opposite when filing this lawsuit on November 25. And they did not tell the Supreme Court that the case would no longer be moot after December 14, despite telling that Court the exact opposite on December 11. The fact that it was never shared suggests that counsel's argument as to why the case had to be pursued after December 14 is contrived. Second, Plaintiffs' counsel contend that they “moved as expeditiously as possible from the outset through the termination of this proceeding” and “had not injected new legal claims or evidence after this Court's December 7, 2020[] Order denying the TRO Motion.” (ECF No. 85 at Pg ID 3893-94; ECF No. 112 at Pg ID 4625.) Even if true, it misses the point as to why counsel unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings. “[I]f events that occur subsequent to the filing of a lawsuit . . . deprive the court of the ability to give meaningful relief, then the case is moot and must be dismissed.” Sullivan v. Benningfield, 920 F.3d 401, 410 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting Ailor v. City of Maynardville, 368 F.3d 587, 596 (6th Cir. 2004)). Here, Plaintiffs conceded that their claims were moot after December 14. Yet, in the month that followed, Plaintiffs refused to voluntarily dismiss their claims, forcing Defendants to file their motions to dismiss and the Court to decide Plaintiffs' motion for additional time to respond to the motions to dismiss, which Plaintiffs ultimately did not do.27 Plaintiffs' attorneys proffer several additional unpersuasive arguments. First, citing Beverly v. Shermetta Legal Grp., No. 2:19-CV-11473, 2020 WL 2556674 (E.D. Mich. May 20, 2020), they argue that the act of filing the initial complaint is not enough to warrant sanctions under § 1927. (ECF No. 85 at Pg ID 3887, 3890, 3894; ECF No. 93 at Pg ID 4071; ECF No. 112 at Pg. ID 4609, 462526; ECF No. 161 at Pg ID 5808-09; ECF No. 165 at Pg ID 6572.) This argument misses the crux of opposing counsel's argument for § 1927 sanctions, which is that Plaintiffs' counsel multiplied proceedings by failing to dismiss the case when their claims became moot on December 14 (if not earlier) and by pursuing their legal claims even after the Court issued its opinion In the end, Plaintiffs' attorneys prolonged the inevitable and “caused both [the State Defendants and Intervenor-Defendants] and the [C]ourt to waste resources” in the meantime. Morris v. City of Detroit Water & Sewage Dep't, 20 Fed.Appx. 466, 468 (6th Cir. 2001); see also Andretti v. Borla Performance Indus., Inc., 426 F.3d 824, 835 (6th Cir. 2005) (affirming impositions of sanctions where attorney “refus[ed] to voluntarily dismiss the count and forc[ed] [opposing counsel] to pursue a dispositive motion in order to have the claim dismissed”); Davis v. Detroit Downtown Dev. Auth., 782 Fed.Appx. 455, 458 (6th Cir. 2019). 27 Notably when the State Defendants sought concurrence in their Motion to Dismiss on December 22 (ECF No. 105-3 at Pg ID 4432), Plaintiffs' counsel responded that 21