Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05007/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05007-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
K-Mart Corporation
Appellee
Jerome Marek
Appellant

Document Text:

t 

J! l L ~ . . UniteJ ·stilt~ OU 1

f of Ai, Ills 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ·rcnth Cir-::uit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JEROME MAREK, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

K-MART CORPORATION, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

i:-r~ 2 7 19 1 

OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-5007 

(D.C. No. 87-C-790-B) 

( N. D. Okla. ) 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P . 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the district court denying 

his motion for relief from judgment made pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) and awarding 

attorney's fees. We affirm. 

* 

defendant costs and 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-5007 Document: 010110028926 Date Filed: 02/27/1991 Page: 1 
In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendant had failed 

to pay him overtime wages while he was employed as a 

manager-in-training, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(FLSA), 29 u.s.c. § 207(e). Following a three-day trial, the jury 

found that plaintiff had in fact completed his training period and 

was working as a manager during the period the alleged violations 

occurred. Therefore, plaintiff was exempt from the FLSA 

regulations and no violation had occurred. Plaintiff appealed and 

this court affirmed. Marek v. K-Mart Corporation, Unpublished No. 

88-2656, (10th Cir. filed February 12, 1990). 

Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment in district 

court based on newly discovered evidence and defendant filed its 

bill of costs. The court held that the alleged newly discovered 

evidence did not meet the requirements of Rule 60(b) and was not 

likely to change the outcome of any jury trial. The court also 

assessed costs and fees in favor of defendant. 

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the district court erred in 

denying his Rule 60(b) motion. We review the district court's 

denial of a Rule 60(b) motion under an abuse of discretion 

standard. See Bud Brooks Trucking, Inc. v. Bill Hodges Trucking 

Co., 909 F.2d 1437, 1439-40 (10th Cir. 1990); see also Browder v. 

Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 262 n.7 (1978). 

Upon review, we hold that no abuse of discretion occurred. We 

agree with the district court that the evidence submitted does not 

meet the requirements of Rule 60(b). 

Plaintiff also argues that the district court erred in 

granting defendant's motion for costs and fees. The district 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-5007 Document: 010110028926 Date Filed: 02/27/1991 Page: 2 
court may award costs and attorney fees pursuant to its inherent 

equitable powers. Braley v. Campbell, 832 F.2d 1504, 1510-11 

(10th Cir. 1987); see also Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 

U.S. 752, 764-67 (1980). We review the district court's exercise 

of that power under an abuse of discretion standard. Cf. White v. 

American Airlines, Inc., 915 F.2d 1414, 1426 (10th Cir. 1990). We 

find no abuse by the district court in its determination here. 

Defendant's motion for sanctions on appeal is DENIED. The 

judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered For the Court 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-5007 Document: 010110028926 Date Filed: 02/27/1991 Page: 3