### The Honorab le Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for 1 

### the Western District of Missouri. Pub. L. No. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829 (codified as amended at 29 2 

### U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (1994), and in scattered sections of the United States Code). ___________ 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 Carte r (plaintiffs) appeal from the District Court's award of $20,000 in attorney 1 fees to defendant Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA). We affirm.
Plaintiffs sued TWA in December 1993, alleging violations of th e Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). After 2

### -2-

conducting a bench trial, the District Court rul ed in favor of TWA, and we summarily affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion.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 incu rred fees of over $149,000 ina lawsuit plaintiffs had pursued out of vindictiveness. The District Court subsequently awarded TWA $20,000 in attorn ey fees under its inherent power and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The court stated that "[t]h e fact that [plaintiffs] may have had some legitimate disputes with TWA in other a reas 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 foun d that plaintiffs pursued this lawsuit "in bad faith and for no purpose othe r than to harass and badger TWA." Id. at 4.

Onappeal, plaintiffs argue that the District Court abused it s discretion in assessing fees pursuant to either its inherent power or Rule 11, b ecause this action was not completely colorless or brought in ba d 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 partyhas acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressiv e 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 o f sanctions. Id. at 267. "This is true with regard not only to the sanctio n imposed, but also to the factual basis for the sanction." Id. Havin g rev iewed the parties' briefs and separate appendices, we cannot say th e District Court abused its discretion in assessin g $20,000 in attorney fees against

### As the District Court did not abuse its discretion i n 3 

### ass essing fees under its inherent power, we need not conside r whether such a sanction was proper under Rule 11. -3- plaintiffs , after finding they acted in bad faith and for an imprope r purpose. 3
Plaintiff s' reliance on In re General Motors Corp. , 3 F.3d 980, 984 (6th C ir. 1993) (holding GM's employee assistance program qualified a s ERISA plan), is misplaced, because plaintiffs' allegations had very little , if a nything, 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 (8t h 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.