DocketNumber: 00-40745
Filed Date: 6/21/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________ m 00-40745 _______________ TINA SCHEVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, AND MARK W. STEVENS, Appellant, VERSUS THE MOODY FOUNDATION, Defendant-Appellee. _________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (G-99-CV-379) _________________________ June 20, 2001 Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, ERISA. See Stafford v. True Temper Sports, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SMITH,123 F.3d 291
, 295 (5th Cir. 1997). Circuit Judges. Furthermore, given the groundless nature of the claim and the appellants’ persistence in its PER CURIAM:* maintenance, the decision to award the foundation its reasonable attorney’s fees cannot be considered an abuse of discretion with respect to either Scheve, see Ironworkers Tina Scheve appeals a summary judgment Local # 272 v. Bowen,624 F.2d 1255
, 1266 on her claim of discrimination in violation of (5th Cir. 1980),2 or Stevens, see Browning v. provisions of the Employee Retirement Kramer,931 F.2d 340
, 344 (5th Cir. 1991) Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 (“[W]hen the entire course of proceedings U.S.C. §§ 1140-41. Scheve and her attorney, were unwarranted and should neither have Mark Stevens, appeal the award of attorney’s been commenced nor persisted in, an award fees to the Moody Foundation.1 Finding no under § 1927 may . . . shift the entire financial reversible error, we affirm. burden of an action’s defense.”). Scheve filed a complaint asserting a claim AFFIRMED. with no basis in fact, which would have been apparent if she or Stevens had conducted even a cursory investigation. Moreover, upon “learning” of the inaccuracy of the allegations, she refused to withdraw the claim and instead asserted a new theory of liability for the first time in her response to the motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment was appropriate, because Scheve failed to establish an element of her prima facie case, i.e., that the foundation fired her with specific intent to prevent her from exercising her rights under * 2 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has Scheve complains that the court failed determined that this opinion should not be properly to analyze the fee award under Bowen. published and is not precedent except under the Although in its oral order the court did not discuss limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. the Bowen factors at length, the court expressly 47.5.4. considered each of the relevant factors sufficiently to allow us to conclude that it did not abuse its 1 The court cited several bases for the fee discretion in awarding fees under § 1132(g). award, including, inter alia, ERISA’s fee-shifting Moreover, other than the conclusional assertion provision,29 U.S.C. § 1132
(g), for the award that “under any view of the Bowen factors, this fee against Scheve, and28 U.S.C. § 1927
for the award was improper,” Scheve fails even to argue award against Stevens. why the award was inappropriate under Bowen. 2