Nielsen v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                                      ___________
    No. 95-4176
    ___________
    Scott Nielsen; Douglas                   *
    McSherry; H. P. Anderson;                *
    Thomas Carter, parties                   *
    immediately above individually           *
    and for and on behalf of the             *
    Social Health Services Employee          *
    Assistance Program for TWA               * Appeal from the United States
    Employees, *                             District Court for the Western
    * District of Missouri.
    Appellants,                *
    *        [PUBLISHED]
    v.                                  *
    *
    Trans World Airlines, Inc.,              *
    *
    Appellees.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted:      September 3, 1996
    Filed:   September 11, 1996
    ___________
    Before BOWMAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Scott Nielsen, Douglas McSherry, Hal Anderson, and Thomas Carter
    (plaintiffs) appeal from the District Court's1 award of $20,000 in attorney
    fees to defendant Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA).       We affirm.
    Plaintiffs sued TWA in December 1993, alleging violations of the
    Employment Retirement Income Security Act2 (ERISA).       After
    1
    The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for
    the Western District of Missouri.
    2
    Pub. L. No. 93-406, 
    88 Stat. 829
     (codified as amended at 
    29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461
     (1994), and in scattered sections of the United
    States Code).
    conducting a bench trial, the District Court ruled in favor of TWA, and we
    summarily affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion.    Nielsen v. Trans
    World Airlines, Inc., 
    81 F.3d 165
     (8th Cir. 1996) (table).    Meanwhile, TWA
    applied for attorney fees, asserting it had incurred fees of over $149,000
    in a lawsuit plaintiffs had pursued out of vindictiveness.      The District
    Court subsequently awarded TWA $20,000 in attorney fees under its inherent
    power and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.   The court stated that "[t]he
    fact that [plaintiffs] may have had some legitimate disputes with TWA in
    other areas did not merit the filing of this ERISA action."       Nielsen v.
    Hart, No. 93-1237, order at 8 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 5, 1995).       The court found
    that plaintiffs pursued this lawsuit "in bad faith and for no purpose other
    than to harass and badger TWA."     Id. at 4.
    On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the District Court abused its
    discretion in assessing fees pursuant to either its inherent power or Rule
    11, because this action was not completely colorless or brought in bad
    faith.    They also argue that the District Court should not have assessed
    fees without having any information as to their ability to pay.
    We have previously noted that the Supreme Court has held that a
    district court may assess attorney fees under its inherent power "when a
    party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive
    reasons."    Dillon v. Nissan Motor Co., 
    986 F.2d 263
    , 266 (8th Cir. 1993).
    We review for an abuse of discretion the District Court's imposition of
    sanctions.   
    Id. at 267
    .   "This is true with regard not only to the sanction
    imposed, but also to the factual basis for the sanction."        
    Id.
       Having
    reviewed the parties' briefs and separate appendices, we cannot say the
    District Court abused its discretion in assessing $20,000 in attorney fees
    against
    -2-
    plaintiffs, after finding they acted in bad faith and for an improper
    purpose.3
    Plaintiffs' reliance on In re General Motors Corp., 
    3 F.3d 980
    , 984
    (6th Cir. 1993) (holding GM's employee assistance program qualified as
    ERISA plan), is misplaced, because plaintiffs' allegations had very little,
    if anything, to do with ERISA and TWA's employee assistance program.
    Moreover, the mere fact that one of plaintiffs' claims survived a motion
    for summary judgment and a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c) motion at
    trial for judgment on partial findings does not preclude the imposition of
    attorney fees.    See Flowers v. Jefferson Hosp. Ass'n, 
    49 F.3d 391
    , 393 (8th
    Cir. 1995).    We reject plaintiffs' final argument regarding ability to pay,
    as they presented no financial information to the District Court, and in
    fact opposed TWA's motion to disclose such information.        See Brandt v.
    Schal Assocs., Inc., 
    960 F.2d 640
    , 652 (7th Cir. 1992); White v. General
    Motors Corp., 
    908 F.2d 675
    , 685 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 
    498 U.S. 1069
     (1991).
    Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    3
    As the District Court did not abuse its discretion in
    assessing fees under its inherent power, we need not consider
    whether such a sanction was proper under Rule 11.
    -3-