Jonathan Stewart v. GeoStar Corporation ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
    File Name: 11a0452n.06
    FILED
    No. 10-1180
    Jul 06, 2011
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
    FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
    JONATHAN STEWART,                                        )
    )         ON APPEAL FROM THE
    Plaintiff-Appellant,                              )         UNITED STATES DISTRICT
    )         COURT FOR THE EASTERN
    v.                                                       )         DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
    )
    GEOSTAR CORPORATION,                                     )                  OPINION
    )
    Defendant-Appellee.                               )
    BEFORE: NORRIS, ROGERS, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Jonathan Stewart appeals the decision of the district court denying
    him attorneys fees after succeeding with litigation against defendant GeoStar Corporation.
    Under the governing law of the state of Delaware, plaintiff was required to prove by clear
    evidence that defendant “engaged in bad faith conduct, which unnecessarily prolonged or delayed
    [the] litigation or knowingly asserted frivolous claims.” Nogy v. Bistricer, 
    770 A.2d 43
    , 64-65 (Del.
    Ch. 2000) (internal quotations marks omitted). Because the district court was “unable to find that
    Defendant defended this action in bad faith, nor that any specific argument made by Defendant was
    made in bad faith,” it denied attorneys’ fees.
    We review the district court’s conclusion not to award an attorney fees sanction for abuse of
    discretion. Fieger v. Cox, 
    524 F.3d 770
    , 774 (6th Cir. 2008). Having reviewed the cold record in
    No. 10-1180
    Stewart v. GeoStar
    this case, the briefs of the parties, and having entertained oral argument, we are unable to say that
    the district court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees.
    Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed based on the reasoning set forth
    in its Order filed on November 5, 2009.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-1180

Judges: Norris, Rogers, Griffin

Filed Date: 7/6/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024