Nalliah Rajah v. County of Clark

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NALLIAH RAJAH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF CLARK,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-17480
D.C. No. 2:04-cv-01153-BES-RJJ
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Brian E. Sandoval, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 11, 2009**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RAWLINSON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Nalliah Rajah (Rajah) appeals the district court’s grant of attorney’s fees to
County of Clark (Clark County).
FILED
DEC 15 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Reviewing the attorney’s fees award for abuse of discretion, see McCown v.
City of Fontana, 565 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2009), as amended, we conclude
that the district court applied the correct legal standard and the factual findings
support its conclusion that Rajah’s claims were without foundation.
In an earlier decision, this court affirmed the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Clark County on Rajah’s claims of race and age-
based discrimination, retaliation, violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and various state
law claims. See Rajah v. County of Clark, 313 Fed. Appx. 8 (9th Cir. 2008)
(unpublished memorandum disposition). Subsequently the district court, citing the
proper legal standard and reviewing the magistrate judge’s report and the parties’
filings, awarded attorney’s fees to the County. See Order, Rajah v. County of
Clark, No. 2:04-cv-01153-BES-RJJ (D. Nev. Oct. 1, 2008). No abuse of discretion
occurred. See Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. City of Hailey, 452 F.3d 1055, 1060 (9th Cir.
2006) (concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion where it “was
aware of the proper legal standard” and carefully evaluated each claim to
determine “whether there was any colorable legal or factual basis for each claim”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --