Raad

MEMORANDUM *

1. Because Raad failed to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(b)(2) by refusing to provide any part of the trial transcript, we cannot evaluate her sufficiency of evidence claim, and thus dismiss it. See Syncom Capital Corp. v. *397 Wade, 924 F.2d 167 , 169 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam).

2. Raad contends that the district court erred in not instructing the jury on the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, but “it is not normally appropriate to introduce the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to the jury. At that stage, the framework ‘unnecessarily evades the ultimate question of discrimination vel non. ’ ” Costa v. Desert Palace, Inc., 299 F.3d 838, 855-56 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc) (quoting U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714 , 103 S.Ct. 1478 , 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983)), aff'd, 539 U.S. 90 , 123 S.Ct. 2148 , 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003). To the extent we can evaluate this claim without a transcript, nothing in the record suggests that this case is atypical so as to make such an instruction appropriate. Nor do we have any record that Raad objected to the instructions at trial.

3. Costs are awarded to the prevailing party…

dissenting in part.

I respectfully dissent from the portion of the memorandum disposition approving the $150,000 fees award against the plaintiff, Nada Raad.

The district court provided no adequate explanation as to why fees should be awarded against Raad, and no explanation at all concerning the amount of the fee award. Stringent standards apply to fee awards against plaintiffs in civil rights cases. See Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421-22 , 98 S.Ct. 694 , 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978) (holding that a district court should award a prevailing defendant attorney’s fees only if the plaintiffs action was “frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation” and, even then, urging district courts to “resist the understandable temptation to engage in post hoc reasoning by concluding that, because a plaintiff did not ultimately prevail, his action must have been unreasonable or without foundation”). Stringent standards also apply regarding the extent to which a judge must explain how a fee award was calculated. See Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. City of Hailey, 452 F.3d 1055, 1065 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that the district court should “provide a concise but clear explanation of its…