Chesterfield Spine Center, LLC v. Healthlink HMO, Inc.

Filing 102

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's unopposed motion for attorney's fees 98 is granted, and plaintiff shall pay $19,614.77 to defendant as attorneys fees. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the unopposed motion for bill of costs 101 is granted, and the Clerk of Court shall tax costs as requested. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 5/19/17. (CAR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CHESTERFIELD SPINE CENTER, LLC, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
GILSTER-MARY LEE CORP.,
)
)
Defendant.
)

Case No. 4:15 CV 1169 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees and bill
of costs. On April 25, 2017, I granted summary judgment to defendant on
plaintiff’s EIRSA claim. [96]. Defendant then filed timely motions for attorney’s
fees and costs. Plaintiff has not objected to the motions, and its time for doing so
has expired. I will direct the Clerk of Court to tax costs as requested and award
fees in the requested amount of $19,614.77.
Under ERISA, “the court in its discretion may allow a reasonable attorney’s
fee and costs of action to either party.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1). Courts
considering an award of attorney’s fees under ERISA should apply this discretion
consistent with the remedial purposes of ERISA. Starr v. Metro Sys., Inc., 461
F.3d 1036, 1040 (8th Cir. 2006). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has directed
me to consider the following five factors when considering whether to award fees

here: 1) the degree of plaintiff’s culpability or bad faith; 2) the ability of plaintiff
to pay fees; 3) whether an award of fees could deter other plaintiffs acting under
similar circumstances; 4) whether defendant sought to benefit all participants and
beneficiaries of an ERISA plan or to resolve a significant legal issue regarding
ERISA; and 5) the relative merits of the parties’ positions. Lawrence v.
Westerhaus, 749 F.2d 494, 495-96 (8th Cir. 1984).
After careful consideration of these factors, I will award fees as requested.
Although I do not find that plaintiff acted in bad faith, it is a sophisticated ERISA
plaintiff which has brought many of these types of cases and is certainly familiar
with the statutory exhaustion requirements and its obligation to timely appeal the
denial of benefits, yet it chose to prosecute this case despite its failure to do so.
Defendant has an obligation to all Plan participants to ensure that ERISA’s
requirements are enforced, which it did in this case. Defendant (and the members
of the Plan) should not be forced to bear the burden of fees under these
circumstances, especially since plaintiff has offered no objection to defendant’s
representation that plaintiff can afford the requested fees.
For these reasons and without objection by plaintiff,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s unopposed motion for
attorney’s fees [98] is granted, and plaintiff shall pay $19,614.77 to defendant as
attorney’s fees.
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the unopposed motion for bill of costs
[101] is granted, and the Clerk of Court shall tax costs as requested.

_______________________________
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 19th day of May, 2017.

3