Kidiavayi v. Leonard, 2:16-cv-01202

Plaintiff Stanley Kidiavayi sued University of Nevada and Dr. Bruce Leonard alleging discrimination; federal claims were dismissed as time-barred and state claims were remanded.
Court previously denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend as futile.
Defendants moved for attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 as the prevailing parties.
Defendants argued the suit was frivolous, unreasonable, and that counsel multiplied proceedings vexatiously.
Plaintiff argued the statute of limitations should have been tolled during NERC’s review and pointed to deposition evidence and policy changes suggesting potential merit to discrimination claims.
The Court evaluated whether the case was frivolous (for § 1988) or involved counsel’s reckless/bad-faith conduct (for § 1927).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant is entitled to fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (prevailing defendant)	Kidiavayi contends his claim had tolling grounds (NERC review) and factual support from depositions	Defendants contend the federal claims were frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation	Denied — court found the claim not frivolous or groundless and therefore not an exceptional case for § 1988 fees
Whether counsel multiplied proceedings unreasonably under 28 U.S.C. § 1927	Kidiavayi’s counsel pursued a nonfrivolous theory (tolling) and presented evidence; no reckless/bad-faith conduct alleged by plaintiff	Defendants assert counsel’s conduct unreasonably multiplied proceedings warranting personal sanctions	Denied — defendants failed to show counsel acted recklessly or in bad faith under § 1927

Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978) (standard for awarding fees to prevailing defendants under civil-rights statutes)
Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5 (1980) (definition of frivolous litigation in § 1983/ civil-rights context)
Dooley v. Reiss, 736 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1984) (frivolous claims lack foundation)
Glanzman v. Uniroyal, Inc., 892 F.2d 58 (9th Cir. 1989) (litigation is frivolous when result is obvious or arguments wholly without merit)
Mitchell v. Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools, 805 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1986) (defendants protected from baseless litigation; fees to defendants only in exceptional cases)
In re Girardi, 611 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2010) (standards for § 1927 sanctions)
United States v. Blodgett, 709 F.2d 608 (9th Cir. 1983) (§ 1927 requires reckless or bad-faith conduct)
Barnd v. City of Tacoma, 664 F.2d 1339 (9th Cir. 1982) (same standard for § 1927 sanctions)