Melech v. Life Insurance Company of North America et al

Filing 261

ORDER denying 211 Motion for Attorney Fees as set out in order. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 8/25/2015. (cmj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DIANE G. MELECH,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
NORTH AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)
)

)

)
)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 10-00573-KD-M

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Interim Application for Attorneys’ Fees
and Costs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g),” which was filed January 27, 2015 (Doc. 211).
Prior to the filing of the instant motion, the district court granted summary judgment on
behalf of the Defendant. (Doc. 162). This decision was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals, and this court was instructed to remand the matter to LINA for further consideration.
After complying with the Eleventh Circuit’s instructions on remand, this Court again entered
summary judgment on behalf of the Defendant. (Doc. 259).
In an ERISA action by a plan participant to recover benefits, “the court in its discretion
may allow a reasonable attorney’s fee ... to either party.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1). On March 27,
2014, ten months prior to filing the instant motion, Plaintiff sought an award of attorneys’ fees
and costs from the Eleventh Circuit. The parties extensively briefed the issue of attorneys’ fees
and whether a remand to the plan administrator was an event sufficient to warrant the award of
attorneys’ fees.
On July 16, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit remanded Plaintiff’s “Application for Fees and
Costs” to this court “for a determination of the reasonable amounts of trial and appellate

attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses to be awarded, if any, should [Plaintiff] prevail on the merits
of her underlying ERISA claims.” (emphasis added). Plaintiff filed a motion for the Court of
Appeals to reconsider, arguing that its decision was in conflict with Hardt v. Reliance Standard
Life Insurance Co., 130 S. Ct. 2149 (2010), and other Circuits’ decisions regarding whether
remand to a plan administrator was an event rendering a party eligible for an award of attorneys’
fees and costs.1 On October 8, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit denied Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider
without discussion.
Plaintiff makes the same arguments before this Court. However, the Court interprets the
mandate as allowing the undersigned to award an attorney fee only if Plaintiff prevailed on the
merits. As evidenced by this Court’s recent entry of summary judgment on behalf of the
Defendant, Plaintiff did not “prevail on the merits of her underlying ERISA claims.”
Accordingly, “Plaintiff’s Interim Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Pursuant to 29
U.S.C. § 1132(g)” is DENIED. (Doc. 211).
DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of August 2015.
/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

In Hardt, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff need not be a “prevailing party” in order to receive an award
under Section 1132(g)(1). Id. at 2156. Instead, a party is “eligible” for an award of fees and costs, Id. at 2158 n.
8,“as long as the fee claimant has achieved some degree of success on the merits.” Id. at 2152 (internal quotes
omitted); accord Id. at 2158.“A claimant does not satisfy that requirement by achieving trivial success on the merits
or a purely procedural victor[y].”Id.(internal quotes omitted). The standard is met, however, “if the court can fairly
call the outcome of the litigation some success on the merits without conducting a lengthy inquir[y] into the question
whether a particular party’s success was substantial or occurred on a central issue.” Id. (internal quotes omitted).
However, the Hardt decision also stated: “[W]e need not decide today whether a remand order, without more,
constitutes ‘some success on the merits’ sufficient to make a party eligible for attorney's fees under § 1132(g)(1).”
Id. at 2159.

2