Lehr et al v. Perri Electric, Inc., et al

Filing 99

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 8/21/19 DENYING 58 Motion for Attorney Fees. The court will allow $180.84 in costs for moving defendants. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Frank M. Perri's and Perri Electric, Inc.'s request for costs 57 is GRANTED. Costs shall be taxed against Plaintiffs in the sum of $180.84. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12

PAUL LEHR and COLLEEN LEHR,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17
18

No. 2:17-cv-1188 WBS AC

v.

ORDER RE: DEFNDANTS FRANK M.
PERRI’S AND PERRI ELECTRIC
INC.’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS’
FEES AND COSTS

FRANK M. PERRI; PERRI ELECTRIC,
INC., a California Corporation;
PERRI ELECTRIC INC. PROFIT
SHARING PLAN; PERRI ELECTRIC
INC. PROFIT SHARING TRUST FUND;
and DOES 1-50,
Defendants.

19
20

----oo0oo----

21
22

Plaintiffs Paul and Colleen Lehr brought this action

23

against defendants Frank M. Perri (“Frank Jr.”), Perri Electric,

24

Inc. (“Perri Electric”), Perri Electric Inc. Profit Sharing Plan,

25

Perri Electric Inc. Profit Sharing Trust Fund, and Does 1-50,

26

alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Security Act of

27

1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ § 1001 et seq.

28
1

Before the court is

1

defendants Frank Jr.’s and Perri Electric’s Motion for Attorneys’

2

Fees and Bill of Costs.

3

I.

(Docket Nos. 57 & 58.)

Background

4

This court described much of the factual and procedural

5

background to the lawsuit in its order on summary judgment.

6

(Mem. & Order: Re Mot. for Summ. J. (“Summ. J. Order”) (Docket

7

No. 56).)

8

summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs lacked statutory

9

standing under ERISA.

The court granted moving defendants’ motion for

(See id. at 13.)

In light of the judgment

10

in their favor, moving defendants now move for attorneys’ fees

11

and costs.

12

II.

13

Discussion
A.

14

Attorneys’ Fees
ERISA provides that “[i]n any action under this

15

subchapter (other than an action described in paragraph (2))1 by

16

a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary, the court in its

17

discretion may allow a reasonable attorney’s fee and costs of

18

action to either party.”

19

terms, the statute authorizes an award of attorneys’ fees “only

20

when the action is brought by one of the parties enumerated in §

21

1132(g)(1).”

22

229 (9th Cir. 1994).

23

29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1).

By its express

See Corder v. Howard Johnson & Co., 53 F.3d 225,

The court previously found that plaintiffs are not any

24

of the parties enumerated in Section 1132(g)(1).

25

Paragraph 2 of 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g) provides for
mandatory attorneys’ fees and costs in actions for the payment of
delinquent contributions under 29 U.S.C. § 1145. See 29 U.S.C. §
1132(g)(2). The parties agree that this subdivision is not
applicable in this case. (See Defs.’ Mem. at 4 (Docket No. 59);
Pls.’ Opp’n at 2 (Docket No. 95).)
2

26
27
28

1

On summary

1

judgment, the court held that Colleen Lehr did not have standing

2

under ERISA as a plan participant because she lacked a colorable

3

claim to vested benefits.

4

Consequently, the court concluded that Paul Lehr did not have

5

standing either because his standing, as Colleen’s spouse and

6

beneficiary, was dependent on her status as a plan participant.

7

(See id. at 13 n.9.)

8
9

(See Summ. J. Order at 11-13.)

Ninth Circuit case law recognizes two exceptions to
this general rule.

The first exception allows a court to “assess

10

attorney’s fees against a multi-employer benefit plan that

11

unsuccessfully sues an employer for non-payment of ERISA

12

contributions.”

13

Cal. Admin. Corp. v. Russell, 726 F.2d 1410, 1415-16 (9th Cir.

14

1984)).

15

attorneys’ fees against a party who “survives summary judgment

16

and actually tries its case on the colorable theory that it is

17

one of the enumerated parties specified in § 1132(g)(1)” and then

18

“fails to prevail on that ground because its claim lacks any

19

evidentiary basis.”

20

of S. California v. Kennesaw Life & Accident Ins. Co., 25 F.3d

21

743, 747 (9th Cir. 1994)).

22

Corder, 53 F.3d at 230 (citing Carpenters S.

The second exception authorizes courts to award

Id. at 230-31 (citing Credit Managers Ass’n

The first exception does not apply because moving

23

defendants do not seek an award of fees against a multi-employer

24

benefit plan.

25

second exception created in Credit Managers.

26

to apply, plaintiffs must have survived summary judgment on the

27

theory that they are one of the parties enumerated in Section

28

1132(g)(1).

Moreover, moving defendants cannot rely on the
For this exception

See Corder, 53 F.3d at 230-31 (holding that this is
3

1

a requirement for the Credit Managers exception to apply)2; see

2

also Lifecare Mgmt. Servs., LLC v. Zenith Am. Sols., Inc., No.

3

3:15-cv-00307 RCJ VPC, 2017 WL 2587602, at *2 (D. Nev. June 14,

4

2017) (“Corder establishes that before attorneys’ fees may be

5

awarded against a plaintiff in an ERISA action, the plaintiff

6

must at least survive summary judgment on the possibility that it

7

is an enumerated party under § 1132(g).” (emphasis in original)).

8

Because the court’s found on summary judgment that plaintiffs

9

lacked standing under Section 1132, this court lacks authority to

10

award moving defendants fees.

11
12
13

See Corder, 53 F.3d at 231.

Accordingly, this court must deny moving defendants’
motion for attorneys’ fees.
B.

14

Costs
Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

15

governs the taxation of costs, which are generally subject to

16

limits set under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.

17

(enumerating taxable costs); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) (“Unless a

18

federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides

19

otherwise, costs--other than attorney’s fees-should be allowed to

20

the prevailing party.”); Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons,

21

Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 440-45 (1987) (limiting taxable costs to

22

those enumerated in § 1920).

23

another federal statute that provides for costs in applicable

24

ERISA actions, the Ninth Circuit has held that “it does not

25

While moving defendants acknowledge that Corder
contains such a requirement, they argue that “the ruling in
Credit Managers is not so strict.” (See Defs.’ Reply at 2
(Docket No. 96).) However, Corder binds this court as the later
and controlling authority. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889,
893 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
4

26
27
28

2

See 28 U.S.C. § 1920

While 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1) is

1

necessarily preclude an award of costs pursuant to Rule 54(d)(1)

2

or make an award of costs pursuant to Rule 54(d)(1) superfluous.”

3

See Quan v. Comput. Scis. Corp., 623 F.3d 870, 888 (9th Cir.

4

2010), abrogated on other grounds, Fifth Third Bancorp v.

5

Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. 409 (2014).

6

This court has discretion in determining whether to

7

allow certain costs.

See Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1523

8

(9th Cir. 1996) (district court has discretion to determine what

9

constitutes a taxable cost within the meaning of § 1920).

10

However, Rule 54(d)(1) creates a presumption in favor of awarding

11

costs to prevailing parties and the losing party must show why

12

costs should not be awarded.

13

Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 944 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Russian

14

River Watershed Prot. Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa, 142 F.3d 1136,

15

1144 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that the presumption “may only be

16

overcome by pointing to some impropriety on the part of the

17

prevailing party”).

18

See Save Our Valley v. Sound

Moving defendants are clearly prevailing parties under

19

Rule 54, having received a complete grant of summary judgment.

20

See Quan, 623 F.3d at 889; Bommarito v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co.,

21

No. 2:15-cv-1187 WBS DB, 2018 WL 4657243, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept.

22

26, 2018).

23

They itemize $164.64 in transcript fees and $16.20 for the costs

24

of making copies.

25

the court finds these costs to be proper.

26

copying costs are encompassed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920(2) and 1920(4)

27

respectively.

28

for use in this case.

Moving defendants’ bill of costs totals $180.84.

Plaintiffs have not filed any objections and
Transcript fees and

And the specific items were necessarily obtained
See Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Labs.,
5

1

Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir. 1990).

2
3

Accordingly, the court will allow $180.84 in costs for
moving defendants.

4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Frank M. Perri’s and Perri

5

Electric, Inc.’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Docket No. 58) be,

6

and the same hereby is, DENIED.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Frank M. Perri’s and Perri

8

Electric, Inc.’s request for costs (Docket No. 57) be, and the

9

same hereby is, GRANTED.

10

in the sum of $180.84.

11

Dated:

Costs shall be taxed against plaintiffs

August 21, 2019

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6