United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3358

___________

Frank E. Tappin; Perry Anthony Jr.; *

Larry Bazzelle; Derrick S. Briggs; *

Charles Anthony Dowd; Robert *

Fleming; Morstine Harris; Henry *

Lamar; Sigfrid Lewis; Ruth M. *

Swanigan; Joe Lee Wright; *

Ocie Robinson, *

*

 Plaintiffs – Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Tommy Goodwin, Col., in his official * 

capacity; Arkansas State Police *

Department; State of Arkansas; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Wayne Eddey, Capt., and his successors *

in office, in his individual and official *

capacity as Director of the Personnel *

and Training Division of the Arkansas *

State Police; John Gillespie, Chairman, *

and his successor in office, in their *

capacity as Commissioner of the *

Arkansas State Police and as *

representative of the Arkansas State *

Police Commissioner; Billy Simpson, *

Vice-Chairman, and his successor in *

office, in their capacity as Commissioner*

of the Arkansas State Police and as *

representative of the Arkansas State *
1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

Police Commissioner; Arkansas State *

Police Commission, *

* 

Defendants – Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 26, 2008

Filed: October 7, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

African American class members moved in the district court for an additional

award of attorney fees under a 1995 settlement agreement in their discrimination

action against the Arkansas State Police Department. The district court1

 denied the

motion, and we review its order for abuse of discretion. Arnold v. Nursing & Rehab.

Ctr. at Good Shepherd, LLC, 471 F.3d 843, 847 (8th Cir. 2006). Its interpretation of

the settlement agreement is reviewed de novo. Gilbert v. Monsanto Co., 216 F.3d

695, 700 (8th Cir. 2000). 

The 1995 settlement agreement provided an initial fee award of $100,000 for

the class attorneys, as well as additional fees "if the plaintiffs obtain relief for a breach

of this agreement." The agreement also specified that the "[e]mployer is not liable for

any other fees and costs of the class, unless it breaches this Settlement Agreement."

The district court determined on March 28, 2007 that the Arkansas State Police
-3-

Department had satisfied its obligations under the agreement, terminated court

supervision of the department, and denied as moot a class motion to extend and

enforce the agreement. The district court later denied a request by the class for an

additional $203,500 in attorney fees for its efforts to ensure compliance with the

agreement, pointing out that the settlement agreement unambiguously permitted

additional fees only if the agreement were breached and a court awarded relief based

on it.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to

award attorney fees under the agreement since the class did not show that it had

obtained relief for any breach of it. The order of the district court is affirmed.

_____________________________