736 Fed.Appx. 116 (6th Cir. 2018), 17-1445, Mys v. Michigan Department of State Police
|Citation:||736 Fed.Appx. 116|
|Opinion Judge:||RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge.|
|Party Name:||Linda MYS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Collin Harold Nyeholt, Law Office, Okemos, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellee Jeanmarie Miller, Office of the Attorney General of Michigan, Lansing, MI, for Defendant-Appellant|
|Judge Panel:||BEFORE: GILMAN, ROGERS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||May 31, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|
Please Refer Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 6th Cir. Rule 32.1.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Collin Harold Nyeholt, Law Office, Okemos, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Jeanmarie Miller, Office of the Attorney General of Michigan, Lansing, MI, for Defendant-Appellant
BEFORE: GILMAN, ROGERS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge.
In an opinion filed on March 28, 2018, we affirmed a jurys award of $350,000 in favor of Linda Mys, a former desk sergeant with the Michigan Department of
State Police (the Department). Mys v. Mich. Dept of State Police, 886 F.3d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 2018) (Mys II ). At issue in the case was Sgt. Myss temporary reassignment to a new post followed by a permanent transfer to another, more distant one, both of which occurred after she filed sexual-harassment and sexual-assault complaints (collectively, "sexual-harassment complaints") against a coworker. Id.
Sgt. Mys now moves for attorney fees under Title VIIs fee-shifting provision and for costs under Rule 39 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Department concedes that Sgt. Mys is entitled to attorney fees and costs as the prevailing party in this appeal, and it does not dispute the reasonableness of the $26,625.60 in fees and the $623.08 in costs that she requests.
Sgt. Mys also moves for sanctions under (1) Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and (3) this courts inherent sanctioning power. We previously noted that mischaracterizations of the record by counsel for the Department impeded our review of the case. Mys II, 886 F.3d at 599. Sgt. Mys now contends that those misstatements and others merit the imposition of sanctions.
Rule 38 authorizes sanctions "[i]f a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous." Fed. R. App. P. 38. This...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP