Opinion ID: 6226552
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State Statutes

Text: Tinker and Attorney Defendants first argued that they were entitled to attorneys’ fees under three Oklahoma statutes: (1) Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2011.1; (2) Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 103; and (3) Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 761.1. These statutes require a court to award attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party if it determines that a claim or defense was frivolous, brought in bad faith, not wellgrounded in fact, or unwarranted under existing law with no good-faith argument to change the law.8 Here, the district court found that none of these grounds were met. But Tinker and Attorney Defendants offer two arguments in rebuttal. First, they insist that the district court abdicated its responsibility by failing to make the necessary findings as required by the statutes. We disagree. The district court made the required findings: “the Court finds this claim is not ‘frivolous.’ It was not asserted in bad faith; it was well grounded in fact, and plaintiff made a rational, good faith argument to support his position that the claim was not barred by the statute of limitations.” Supp. R. at 131. 8 Under § 2011.1, a court must award attorneys’ fees if it determines that “a claim or defense asserted in the action by a nonprevailing party was frivolous.” Section 2011.1 defines “frivolous” as a “claim or defense [that] was knowingly asserted in bad faith or without any rational argument based in law or facts to support the position of the litigant or to change existing law.” Similarly, § 103 and § 761.1 mandate an award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party if a court finds that a nonprevailing party’s claim or defense was brought “in bad faith, was not well grounded in fact, or was unwarranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.” 10 Appellate Case: 21-6020 Document: 010110646218 Date Filed: 02/16/2022 Page: 11 Next, Tinker and Attorney Defendants argue that Cobb conceded that three of his claims were frivolous by voluntarily dismissing them after the filing of the motions to dismiss. But a party’s dismissing claims is not necessarily an admission that the claims were frivolous. As the district court correctly pointed out, there are many potential reasons and tactics behind such a decision. We decline to speculate about Cobb’s motivation here. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to award attorneys’ fees to Tinker and Attorney Defendants under the Oklahoma statutes.