Filed: Apr. 24, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-2717 _ H. Richard Austin lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Hanover Insurance Company, also known as Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee Brown & James lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis _ Submitted: April 20, 2018 Filed: April 24, 2018 [Unpublished] _ Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circ
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-2717 _ H. Richard Austin lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Hanover Insurance Company, also known as Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee Brown & James lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis _ Submitted: April 20, 2018 Filed: April 24, 2018 [Unpublished] _ Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circu..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-2717
___________________________
H. Richard Austin
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Hanover Insurance Company, also known as Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
Brown & James
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: April 20, 2018
Filed: April 24, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
H. Richard Austin appeals the district court’s1 order dismissing his action
seeking to set aside several judgments for fraud on the court, and awarding attorney’s
fees. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
After reviewing the parties’ arguments on appeal and the circumstances of this
case, the court finds no basis to reverse the dismissal. See Superior Seafoods, Inc. v.
Tyson Foods, Inc.,
620 F.3d 873, 878 (8th Cir. 2010) (appeal from action seeking
relief from a prior judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d) is reviewed
for clear abuse of discretion). This court also finds no abuse of discretion in the
district court’s award of attorney’s fees. See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger,
137 S. Ct. 1178, 1184 (2017) (holding a federal court’s inherent authority to award
attorney’s fees as a sanction for bad-faith conduct is limited to the fees incurred
because of the misconduct); Dillon v. Nissan Motor Co.,
986 F.2d 263, 266-67 (8th
Cir. 1993) (a court may assess attorney’s fees where a party has “acted in bad faith,
vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons”).
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1
The Honorable John A. Ross, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
-2-