The Honorable 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 Carter

(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 the

Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). After 2
-2-

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summarily affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion.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
 As the District Court did not abuse its discretion in

3

assessing fees under its inherent power, we need not consider

whether such a sanction was proper under Rule 11.

-3-

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.