Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06111/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06111-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clements Food Company
Appellee
Terry L. Gibbs
Appellant

Document Text:

i' .l J 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Ul').ited ,.,~ l'~ '-, 1 

~-

TENTH CIRCUIT 

TERRY L. GIBBS, } 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

vs. ) 

) 

CLEMENTS FOOD COMPANY, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

AUG O ,., 1992 

-p))f)j _ r'f L~ =· iECKB_, - Clerk 

No. 92-6111 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-1405) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Defendant-appellee Clements Food Company (CFC) prevailed in a 

Title VII suit, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq., brought by 

plaintiff-appellant Terry L. Gibbs. The district court originally 

denied as moot Mr. Gibbs' motion for leave to object to CFC's 

statement of costs and ordered Mr. Gibbs to pay $14,289.50 in 

attorney's fees to CFC pursuant to 42 u.s.c. § 2000e-S(k). See 

Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421-22 (1978) 

(attorney's fees award available to prevailing Title VII defendant 

* 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. 

** 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. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 92-6111 Document: 010110276696 Date Filed: 08/07/1992 Page: 1
if action "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation"). In a 

prior appeal we found that the motion was not moot and we remanded 

for a ruling. Gibbs v.Clements Food Company, 949 F.2d 344 (10th 

Cir. 1991). We instructed the court that if it granted the motion 

it should again determine whether an attorney's fee award was 

warranted, and if so, to consider Mr. Gibbs' financial status in 

setting the amount of the award. Id. at 345 (citing, inter alia, 

Miller v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Educ., 827 F.2d 617, 621 (9th 

Cir. 1987)). The district court on remand granted the motion, 

determined that an award was appropriate, and set the amount of 

the award at $300. Mr. Gibbs now appeals from the $300 award. 

The district court was not clearly erroneous in finding that 

Mr. Gibbs' action was without foundation, and the court 

specifically followed our remand order and considered Mr. Gibbs' 

financial status in reducing the award to $300. We find no abuse 

of discretion. See Miller, 827 F.2d at 620. 

AFFIRMED. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-6111 Document: 010110276696 Date Filed: 08/07/1992 Page: 2