"Prevailing Party" Status Not Necessary for an ERISA Attorneys' Fees Award

Posted on May 27, 2010 by Barger & Wolen LLP

by Scott E. Calvert

Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., __ U.S.__ (2010)

In a decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the United States Supreme Court has declared that an ERISA claimant need not be a “prevailing party” to be eligible for an attorneys’ fees award. In Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., __ U.S.__ (2010), the Court ruled that under 29 U.S.C. §1132(g)(1), a party may be awarded attorneys’ fees if “some degree of success on the merits” is achieved, as opposed to the more stringent requirement imposed by some circuit courts that they be a “prevailing party.”

 

Bridget Hardt initiated the litigation seeking long-term disability benefits under an ERISA plan. Faced with cross motions for summary judgment, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied Reliance’s motion finding that “Reliance’s decision to deny benefits was based on incomplete information.” The District Court also denied Hardt’s motion for summary judgment, but in doing so, found “compelling evidence” that Hardt was totally disabled. The District Court accordingly remanded the claim to Reliance with instructions that all of the evidence in the file be adequately considered within 30 days, otherwise “judgment will be issued in favor of Ms. Hardt.” 

Continue Reading...

Non-Taxable Costs May Be Awarded Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act

Posted on May 26, 2010 by David J. McMahon

In Grove v. Wells Fargo Financial California Inc., 2010 DJDAR 7351 (2010), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided an interesting case involving the types of costs which are recoverable under the provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. Under FCRA § 16810(a)(2), the statute permits a prevailing plaintiff to recover the “costs of the action together with reasonable attorney’s fees as determined by the court.”

The facts of the case are summarized as follows. Wells Fargo Financial California Inc. (“Wells Fargo”) notified several credit agencies that the plaintiff was delinquent on an automobile loan. The plaintiff disputed the information and requested that Wells Fargo correct the record. Wells Fargo refused to do so. Plaintiff then sued Wells Fargo under the FCRA.

In the complaint, plaintiff alleged that Wells Fargo provided false information to the credit reporting agencies. The parties subsequently reached a settlement, and the district court approved the parties’ stipulated judgment. The agreement provided that Wells Fargo would pay plaintiff $20,000 plus costs and reasonable attorney fees. In plaintiff’s motion to recover on the judgment, plaintiff also requested $6,770.60 in non‑taxable costs, in addition to other expenses. The district court denied plaintiff’s request for costs that were not listed as “taxable” under 28 U.S.C. section 1929, concluding it did not have any authority to award non‑taxable costs. Plaintiff appealed that decision of the lower court to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit reversed in part, noting that 28 USC section 1920 outlines the federal court’s power to shift litigation costs. The court noted, however, that Section 1920 does not speak to the authority of the district court to award taxable costs. For that reason, the Ninth Circuit considered whether the FCRA’s expense shifting provision authorized the award of non-taxable costs. The court concluded that the statute does contemplate such an award.

The Court noted that the FCRA allows a prevailing plaintiff to recover the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney fees. The court determined that since the FCRA provides for the recovery of “reasonable attorney’s fees,” district courts have discretion to award non‑taxable costs to prevailing parties under the FCRA. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court erred in ruling that it had no authority to do so.

Interest Incurred on Borrowed Funds to Secure an Undertaking is Not Recoverable

Posted on May 25, 2010 by David J. McMahon

In Rossa v. D.L. Falk Construction Inc., 2010 DJDAR 6674 (May 6, 2010), a panel from the First Appellate District decided a novel case interpreting what constitutes a recoverable cost of appeal under the California Rules of Court (hereinafter “CRC”). 

The plaintiffs were awarded $100,000 on a breach of contract claim against D.L. Falk Construction Inc. (Falk). The trial court added to the jury verdict approximately $680,000 in expenses, expert fees, and attorney fees. The Defendant appealed only from the award and the appellate court reversed. The court held that the court’s fee award of fees constituted an abuse of discretion because it was not supported by an appropriate explanation from the trial judge. Falk was awarded its costs on appeal.

On remand, Falk sought to recover the costs and expenses necessary to secure the appeal bond, including $99,289.81 for interest expenses incurred for the posting of an undertaking. The plaintiffs moved to strike the interest component. Plaintiffs argued that the interest was not reimbursable under 8.278 of the CRC. The trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike the expenses. The court ruled that interest incurred on sums borrowed to obtain a letter of credit was not subject to reimbursement under the CRCs. Falk then appealed.

The court of appeal affirmed the decision of the lower court. The court stated that CRC section 8.278(d)(1)(F) specifies the recoverable costs of appeal include the cost to purchase a bond. The court noted that these costs include the premium and cost to obtain a letter of credit as collateral.

However, the court concluded that interest paid on sums borrowed to fund a letter of credit used to obtain the undertaking are not within the ambit of the CRC’s. The interest expense Falk attempted to recover was in connection with a letter of credit, which may be recovered under different provisions of the CRC. The court however, refused to extend interest reimbursement allowable to deposits to apply to bond interest. The appellate court concluded that Falk’s attempts to recover these interest expenses were properly denied.