ACS HR SOLUTIONS, LLC AS SUBROGEE OF ENERGY CORPORATION RETIREMENT PLAN FOR NON-BARGAINING EMPLOYEES v. BONDS

Filing 52

OPINION. Signed by Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh on 8/20/2013. (nr, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ACS HR SOLUTIONS, LLC, AS SUBROGEE
oF ENTERGY CORPORATION
RETIREMENT PLAN FOR NONBARGAINING EMPLOYEES.
Plaintiff,

Hon. Dennis M. Cavanaugh
OPINION
Civ. Act. No. 2:10-CV-04179(DMC-MF)

HOWARD BONDS,
Defendant.

DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH, U,S.D.J.:
This matter comes before the Court upon the motion of Plaintiff, ACS HR Solutions, for
Final Judgment against Defendant, Howard Bonds, for the principal amount of payments owed
with pre-judgment interest, attorney’s fees, and post-judgment interest. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 78. no oral argument was heard. After carefully considering the submissions of the parties and
based upon the following, it is the finding of this Court that the Plaintiffs motion is granted.
L

BACKGROUND
The factual background of the case is straightforward; Defendant mistakenly received

retirement benefits from Plaintiff, and when Defendant refused to return them, Plaintiff
commenced their action. (Pl.’s Mem. 2, Feb. 22, 2013, ECF No. 47-I).
On August 1 6, 20 10, Plaintiff sued Defendant asserting common law and statutory
ERISA claims. (Id. 1) On January 31. 2012. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
The same day,

Plaintiff flied a Motion of Partial Summary Judgment for a liability

determination on the common law ERISA claim. (Id.) This Court granted the Plaintiffs motion
and denied the Defendant’s motion and ordered Defendant to pay the principal amount of
$66i22.90 on August 22, 2012. (Id.) Plaintiff now moves for Entry of Final Judgment, seeking
the principal amount owed “along with pre-judgrnent interest, attorney’s fees, costs, and post

judgment interest.”

IL

(Nt)

APPLICABLE LAW
ERISA allows an award of attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party based on the Court’s

discretion. 29 U.S.C.A.

§

1 132(g)(1). The statute provides, in relevant part:

[IJn any action under this subchapter (other than an action described in paragraph (2)) by
a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary. the court in its discretion may allow a reasonable
attorney’s fee and costs of action to either party.
When determining whether or not the Court should award attorney’s fees, five flictors should be
examined: (1) the offending parties’ culpability or bad faith; (2) the ability of the offending
parties to satisfy an award of attorney’ fees; (3) the deterrent effect of an award of attorneys’ fees;
(4) the benefit conferred upon members of the pension plan as a whole; and (5) the relative
merits of the parties’ positions. Fields v. Thompson Printing Co., Inc., 363 F.3d 259, 275 (3d Cir.
2004) (citing Ursic v. Bethlehem Mines, 719 F.2d 670. 673 (3d Cir.1983),

1H.

1MSCUSSION

A.

Principal Amount
On August 22, 2010, this Court ruled that Defendant was to reimburse Plaintiff for the

amount of $66,122.90 for the mistaken payments. (Pl.’s Mem. 1, ECF No. 47) Accordingly,
Plaintiff is entitled to the stated amount.

B.

Prejudgment Interest

Federal District Courts routinely award pre-judgment interest for the prevailing party in
ERISA cases. See, e.g., Anthuis v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 971 F.2d 999, 1009 (3d Cir.
1992); McCoy v. Bd. of Trustees of Laborers’ Int’l Union Local No. 222 Pension Plan, 188 F.
Supp. 2d 461, 471 n.7 (D.N.J, 2002), aff’d, 60 F. App’x 396 (3d Cir. 2003); Holmes v. Pension
Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corp.. CIV. A. 98-CV-1241. 1999 WL 179794. at *34 (ED. Pa. Mar.
24. 1 999). afrd in part, rev, in part. 21 3 F.3d 1 24 (3d Cir. 2000); Hardtke v. Exide Corp.. 82 1 F.
Supp 1021

1031 (F D Pa 1993), Kay v Thiift & Piolit Sharmg Plan

mi

Emploces of

Bovertown Casket Co.. 780 F. Supp. 1447, 1462 (ED. Pa. 1991); Kann v. Keystone Res., Inc.,
575 F. Supp. 1084, 1095 (W.D. Pa. 1983).
In its decision in, Anthuis, the Third Circuit, quoting the Eighth Circuit, set forth the
rationale for awarding pre-judgment interest in such cases:
As a general rule, prejudgment interest is to be awarded when the amount of the
underlying liability is reasonably capable of ascertainment and the relief granted
would otherwise fall short of making the claimant whole because he or she has
been denied the use of the money which was legally due. Awarding prejudgment
interest is intended to serve at last two purposes: to compensate prevailing parties
for the true costs of money damages incurred, and, where liability and the amount
of damages are fairly certain, to promote settlement and deter attempts to benefit
from the inherent delays of litigation. Thus prejudgment interest should ordinarily
be granted unless exceptional or unusual circumstances exist making the award of
interest inequitable.
971 F.2d at 1010 (quoting Stroh Container Co. v. Delphi Indus., Inc., 783 F.2d 743, 750 (8th
Cir.’). cert. denied. 476 U.S. 1141, 106 S.Ct. 2249,90 LEd.2d 695 (1986)).
Plaintiff requests that interest on each payment should accrue at the rate in effect at the.
time that each benefit was mistakenly made. Plaintiff submits a detailed chart of payments, the
amounts, the federal post-judgment interest rate of each week that the payment had been issued,
and the total amount of interest due from the date of the mistakenly paid benefit to March 1 8.
3

2013. (see P1.’s Mern., Sigmund Dec.. Ex. A). Based on those calculations. ACS submits that it
is entitled to and should be awarded pre-judgrnent interest through March 1 8, 201 3 in the
aggregate amount of $15,421.73, plus interest accruing thereafter at the per diem rate of $6.18.
Defendant has raised no objection in response to this demand, and thus the Court also awards
Plaintiff the sum of $15,421.73. (Def. Cert. 1, Mar. 3, 2013, ECF. No. 50).
C.

Attorney’s Fees

Turning to the Fields test to determine if this Court should grant attorney’s fees, the first
factor to be examined is whether or not Defendant acted in bad faith. Taking the assertions ol the

Plaintiff about the February 21, 2013, mediation session as true, it seems that Defendant
negotiated in bad faith in this instance. particularly since the Court had already ruled in
Plaintiffs favor. (P1’s Mem. 4, Mar. 25, 2013, ECF No. 51-1). Defendant denies these
allegations, and as the Court does not intend to weigh credibility, this factor does not weigh
heavily in the Court’s analysis.
The second factor is the ability of the Defendant to satisfy the award sought by the
Plaintiff. A financial disclosure by Defendant in 2006 and 2007 estimated a net worth of $1 .2
million, mainly from land, farm equipment, and livestock. (Def. Cert. 3-2) However. Defendant
states that liquid assets total $13,415.00 in cash and $1.800 in securities. (Del’. Cert. 3)
Defendant states that an award of attorneys’ fees would “severely impair or disrupt” I)efendant’s
business, but does not provide any specific facts on how it might do so, making this statement
purely speculative. (Id.)
Both parties agree that the third and fourth factors have been satisfied. Therefore. the do
not need to be discussed. (Id.)

4

The fifth factor examines the relative merits of the Defendant’s

argument.

Defendant

argues that “this was a fairly close case,” yet the Court is to examine the relative merits of the
case, not whether an argument was “devoid of merit.” (Id.) This factor weighs in favor of the
Plaintiff as Summary Judgment was granted in favor of Plaintiff by this Court.
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs calculation of attorneys’ fee. calculated at $7206764 is
excessive and that unnecessary overlap between two firms occurred. (j. 4) However, no speci tic
fee is challenged, and Plaintiff states that duplications, calculated at $8.834.49, were eliminated
in the aibrernentioned figure. (Pl.’s Mem. 5-6, Mar. 25, 2013)
In sum, the factors above weigh in favor of the Plaintiff who will be awarded $72,067.64
in attorneys’ fees.

I

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment is granted. An appropriate

Order accompanies this Opinion.

.S.D.J.

DArE:
Orig:
CC:

Aus7

220’3

I-Ion. Mark Falk. U.S.M.J.
All Counsel of Record
File

5