Reese et al v. CNH America, L. L. C.

Filing 326

OPINION AND ORDER denying 325 Motion for Reconsideration re 322 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Jack Reese, James Cichanopsky, George Nowlin, Frances Elaine Pidde, Roger Miller. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JACK REESE, FRANCES ELAINE PIDDE, JAMES CICHANOFSKY, ROGER MILLER, GEORGE NOWLIN, and RONALD HITT, on behalf of themselves and a similarly situated class, Plaintiffs, Case No. 04-70592 v. Honorable Patrick J. Duggan CNH GLOBAL N.V. and CNH AMERICA LLC, Defendants. / OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE JUNE 30, 2011 ORDER RELATING TO ATTORNEY FEES This matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h) on July 14, 2011. Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of this Court’s June 30, 2011 decision granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s second motion for attorneys’ fees, arguing that this Court committed a palpable defect in denying their request for attorneys’ fees for work expended on appeal. According to Plaintiffs, the Court applied an incorrect legal standard in reaching its decision. It is unclear why Plaintiffs believe this Court applied an incorrect legal standard in assessing whether to award them attorneys fees for the appeal. The Sixth Circuit has repeatedly set forth the five factors this Court applied as the relevant factors when deciding whether to award attorney’s fees under ERISA. See Wells v. U.S. Steel, 76 F.3d 731, 736 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Armistead v. Vernitron Corp., 944 F.2d 1287, 1304 (6th Cir. 1991) (citing Sec’y of Dep’t of Labor v. King, 775 F.2d 666, 669 (6th Cir. 1985)). This Court did not disobey, as Plaintiffs suggest, the Supreme Court’s statement in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S. Ct. 1933 (1983), that “[w]here a plaintiff has obtained excellent results, his attorney should recover a fully compensatory fee” that “should not be reduced simply because the plaintiff failed to prevail on every contention raised in the lawsuit.” Id. at 435, 103 S. Ct. at 1940. To the contrary, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs are not entitled to attorneys fees for the work expended on the appeal because they did not obtain excellent results on appeal. For these reasons, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that this Court committed a palpable defect in deciding their second motion for attorneys’ fees. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the June 30, 2011 order relating to attorney fees is DENIED. Date: July 20, 2011 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Roger J. McClow, Esq. Norman C. Ankers, Esq. Bobby R. Burchfield, Esq. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?