Greg Nance v. Ricoh Electronics, Inc. , 407 F. App'x 404 ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-11141 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar JANUARY 5, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:06-cv-02396-RWS
GREG NANCE,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RICOH ELECTRONICS, INC.,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(January 5, 2011)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Greg Nance filed a complaint against his former employer, Ricoh
Electronics, Inc. (“REI”), alleging racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. §
1981. Nance, who was a senior-level engineer for REI in its Lawrenceville,
Georgia facility, alleged that as a white male he was passed over for a promotion
to be an engineering manager in favor of a less qualified Asian employee, who
Nance contended lacked the requisite engineering degree for the promotion. Early
in the case, the district court warned Nance that a failure to support the factual
basis for his claim would result in the imposition of attorney’s fees and costs
sought by REI pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and 28 U.S.C. §
1927. When Nance failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the
district court granted summary judgment, which we affirmed. Nance v. Ricoh
Elecs., Inc., 381 F. App’x 919 (11th Cir. 2003). Now, Nance and his attorney,
Stephen M. Katz, appeal the district court’s sanction, arguing that the district court
abused its discretion because (1) Nance established a prima facie case of
discrimination, (2) the court wrongfully excluded depositions from consideration
in granting summary judgment, and (3) the court wrongfully denied a motion to
supplement Nance’s complaint by adding a retaliation claim. REI argues that this
appeal is frivolous and filed another motion for sanctions, this time pursuant to
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.
We review a district court’s award of sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 for an
abuse of discretion. Turner v. Sungard Bus. Sys., Inc., 91 F.3d 1418, 1421 (11th
2
Cir. 1996). “An abuse of discretion occurs if the judge fails to apply the proper
legal standard or to follow proper procedures in making the determination or bases
an award [or denial] upon findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” Mut. Serv.
Ins., Co. v. Frit Indus., 358 F.3d 1312, 1322 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting Coastal
Fuels Mktg, Inc. v. Florida Express Shipping Co., Inc., 207 F.3d 1247, 1252 (11th
Cir. 2000)).
After thorough review and consideration of the briefs and the record, we
find no clearly erroneous findings of fact by the district court. Furthermore, we
find that the district court applied the proper legal standard in awarding sanctions
to REI. Nance’s and Katz’s arguments explaining why they should not have to
pay sanctions is based substantially on issues that we already decided when we
affirmed the summary judgment in the prior appeal. Moreover, we agree with the
district court that Nance “has provided no reasonable basis for pursuing this
meritless [litigation]” and has “failed to heed the Court’s previous warning
regarding the consequences of knowingly pursuing a meritless claim.” Nance
continued to prosecute the case after it became clear that the employee who
received the promotion at issue had the requisite degree and qualifications. Since
we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the district court in granting REI’s
motion for sanctions and attorney’s fees, the district court’s order is AFFIRMED.
3
REI’s motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 is
DENIED.
AFFIRMED and DENIED.
4