Nunez v. Pacific Gas & Electric Retirement Plan

Filing 86

ORDER DENYING INTERPLEADER DEFENDANT ADRIANA VANESSA NUEZ'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES by Judge Jon S. Tigar denying 74 Motion for Attorney Fees. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GLORIA NUÑEZ,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
RETIREMENT PLAN, et al.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-07412-JST

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING INTERPLEADER
DEFENDANT ADRIANA VANESSA
NUÑEZ’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’
FEES
Re: ECF No. 74

12
Before the Court is a motion for attorneys’ fees brought by Interpleader Defendant Adriana

13
14

Vanessa Nuñez (“Vanessa”) against Plaintiff and Interpleader Defendant Gloria Nuñez. ECF No.

15

74. The Court will deny the motion.

16

I.

17

BACKGROUND
This action concerns the pension survivor benefits of Daniel Nuñez from Defendant Pacific

18

Gas & Electric Company Retirement Plan. Gloria, who was married to Daniel at the time of his

19

death, and Vanessa, his daughter from a prior marriage, both asserted claims to those benefits.

20

The Court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on February 12, 2018, and a detailed

21

recitation of the facts and procedural history of this case may be found in that order. ECF No. 67.

22

In brief, the Plan initially awarded benefits to Gloria, but its appeals committee reversed that

23

decision and awarded benefits to Vanessa. Gloria sued the Plan seeking an award of benefits

24

under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). The

25

Plan filed an interpleader complaint naming Gloria and Vanessa as interpleader defendants. The

26

Court concluded that the appeals committee did not abuse its discretion in awarding benefits to

27

Vanessa and therefore ruled in Vanessa’s favor. Vanessa subsequently filed the pending motion

28

for attorneys’ fees, seeking $36,225.00 from Gloria.

1

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
ERISA provides that a “court in its discretion may allow a reasonable attorney’s fee and

2
3

costs of action to either party.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1). To award fees under this provision,

4

“courts must first determine whether a litigant has achieved some degree of success on the merits.

5

If so, courts must then determine whether the Hummell factors weigh in favor of awarding that

6

litigant attorney’s fees. Only if both of these conditions are met may a district court award fees.”

7

Simonia v. Glendale Nissan/Infiniti Disability Plan, 608 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010).1 The

8

five Hummell factors are:

9

(1) the degree of the opposing parties’ culpability or bad faith;
(2) the ability of the opposing parties to satisfy an award of fees;
(3) whether an award of fees against the opposing parties would
deter others from acting under similar circumstances; (4) whether
the parties requesting fees sought to benefit all participants and
beneficiaries of an ERISA plan or to resolve a significant legal
question regarding ERISA; and (5) the relative merits of the parties’
positions.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Hummell v. S. E. Rykoff & Co., 634 F.2d 446, 453 (9th Cir. 1980).

15

III.

DISCUSSION
Gloria and Vanessa dispute whether an interpleader defendant may receive a fee award

16
17

from another interpleader defendant under § 1132(g)(1). Vanessa cites several cases where courts

18

have awarded fees, or considered the Hummell factors in declining to award fees, in cases

19

involving interpleader. ECF No. 79 at 5. But none of these cases involved a request for fees from

20

one interpleader defendant to another.2 The Court does not decide this question because it does

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Vanessa argues that, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life
Insurance Co., 560 U.S. 242, (2010), “analysis of the Hummell factors is not required for the
Court to exercise its discretion to award fees.” ECF No. 74 at 5. She is incorrect. Although
Hardt noted that consideration of the factors is “not required for channeling a court’s discretion
when awarding fees under this section,” it also “[did] not foreclose the possibility” that a court
may consider the factors once it determined that a litigant achieved some success on the merits.
560 U.S. at 255 & n.8. In Simonia, the Ninth Circuit considered the Supreme Court’s decision in
Hardt and concluded that “district courts must still consider the Hummell factors before exercising
their discretion to award fees under § 1132(g)(1).” Simonia, 608 F.3d at 1120-21.
1

See Joint Trustees of Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union-Pac. Mar. Ass’n Pension Plan v.
Pritchow, No. C12-1379JLR, 2012 WL 6625279, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 19, 2012) (declining to
award fees to interpleader defendant to be paid by interpleader plaintiff); Schreffler v. Metro. Life
Ins. Co., No. CV 04-1561 PCT SMM, 2006 WL 1127096, at *8 (D. Ariz. Apr. 25, 2006) (fees
2
2

1
2

not find a fee award to Vanessa to be appropriate even if allowed under § 1132(g)(1).
The Court entered judgment in Vanessa’s favor, ECF No. 73, and she therefore achieved

3

more than some success on the merits. Consequently, as Gloria concedes, the final Hummell

4

factor, the relative position of the parties, weighs in favor of a fee award. ECF No. 78 at 10.

5

But, on balance, the Hummell factors weigh against awarding fees. First, “to avoid a

6

finding of bad faith under the Hummell factors, plaintiffs must have a reasonable belief that they

7

could prove an actionable ERISA claim.” Cline v. Indus. Maint. Eng’g & Contracting Co., 200

8

F.3d 1223, 1236 (9th Cir. 2000). Gloria had such a belief in this case. The Plan initially awarded

9

benefits to her. Although the appeals committee reversed that initial award, it was not
unreasonable for Gloria to have challenged the appeals committee’s decision in this Court.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Gloria’s case was not “frivolous” or “baseless” as argued by Vanessa, ECF No. 74 at 8, and the

12

deterrence factor also does not weigh in favor of a fee award; there is no reason to deter

13

individuals from pursuing ERISA claims that they reasonably believe have merit. In addition,

14

Adriana did not seek “to benefit all participants and beneficiaries of an ERISA plan or to resolve a

15

significant legal question regarding ERISA.” Hummell, 634 F.2d at 453. While Vanessa argues

16

that she was acting for the benefit of her sisters as well as herself, this does not transform the

17

dispute into one that involves broader legal questions. This case resolved only the single issue,

18

under facts unique to this case, of who should receive one individual’s pension survivor benefits.

19

Finally, as to ability to pay, Vanessa’s reply takes issue with Gloria’s purported evidence

20

of inability to pay. ECF No. 79 at 6. The Court agrees with Vanessa that a two-year-old affidavit

21

stating that Gloria “has no ability to legally work,” does not establish inability to pay. ECF No. 78

22

at 8. Likewise, Gloria has submitted no information about any assets she might own aside from

23

the community property interest she received after Daniel’s death. The Court makes no finding

24

regarding Gloria’s ability or inability to pay a fee award. However, even if Gloria had the ability

25
26
27
28

awarded to defendant and interpleader plaintiff, paid out of interpleaded funds); Metro. Life Ins.
Co. v. Bischoff, 366 F. Supp. 2d 455, 461 (W.D. Tex. 2004) (fees awarded to guardian ad litem for
defendant’s minor child, paid by interpleader plaintiff); Springate v. Weighmasters Murphy, Inc.
Money Purchase Pension Plan, 217 F. Supp. 2d 1007, 1027 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (noting intent to
award fees to plaintiffs to be paid by defendant in case related to interpleader action).
3

1

to pay, this factor would not be dispositive given the other Hummell factors that weigh against a

2

fee award.
CONCLUSION

3
4

Adriana Vanessa Nuñez’s motion for attorneys’ fees is denied.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: September 5, 2018
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4