Houghton v. The Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company

Filing 37

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 32 Motion to Withdraw Document and denies the request for attorney's fees. The motion to reopen this case is withdrawn. Dkt. # 26 . The Court further GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to file an amended exhibit. Dkt. # 31 . Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (TH)

1
2

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11

ANDRIA C. HOUGHTON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

CASE NO. 2:16-cv-01186-RAJ

ORDER

vs.
THE HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT
INSURANCE COMPANY;

16

Defendant.

17
18
19
20
21

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw the Motion

22

to Reinstate Plaintiff’s case without prejudice for plaintiff filing a motion for attorney’s

23

fees under ERISA, 29 U.S. C. §1132(g)(1). Dkt. # 32. Defendant does not oppose the

24

withdrawing of the motion to reinstate Plaintiff’s case but does oppose Plaintiff’s request
25
26

for attorney’s fees. Dkt. # 34.
The Court agrees with both parties that Plaintiff’s motion should be granted with
ORDER - 1

1
2

regard to withdrawing the motion to reinstate Plaintiff’s case. Therefore, the remaining
issue is whether Plaintiff may collect attorney’s fees.

3

In cases such as this, ERISA grants Courts discretion to award attorney’s fees to
4
5

parties who prevail on the merits. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g). The parties disagree on this

6

initial point—whether Plaintiff has prevailed on the merits. Dkt. ## 34 at 2-3, 36.

7

However, even if Plaintiff is considered to have prevailed, Defendant argues that the

8

Hummell factors suggest that an award of fees is not appropriate. Dkt. # 34 at 3.
9
10

In Hummell, the Ninth Circuit instituted guidelines for courts to apply when

11

exercising discretion under section 1132(g). Hummell v. S. E. Rykoff & Co., 634 F.2d

12

446, 453 (9th Cir. 1980). The Ninth Circuit determined that courts should consider,

13

among other factors, “(1) the degree of the opposing parties’ culpability or bad faith; (2)
14
15

the ability of the opposing parties to satisfy an award of fees; (3) whether an award of

16

fees against the opposing parties would deter others from acting under similar

17

circumstances; (4) whether the parties requesting fees sought to benefit all participants

18

and beneficiaries of an ERISA plan or to resolve a significant legal question regarding

19
20

ERISA; and (5) the relative merits of the parties’ positions.” Id. Though the Court

21

agrees that Plaintiff should not have had to resort to filing a motion in federal court

22

before receiving Defendant’s determination, the Court finds that the Hummell factors in

23

this case weigh in favor of Defendant. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s

24
25
26

request for leave to seek attorney’s fees.
Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion to withdraw and DENIES the request
for attorney’s fees. Dkt. # 32. The motion to reopen this case is withdrawn. Dkt. # 26.
ORDER - 2

1
2

The Court further GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended exhibit. Dkt. # 31.
Dated this 30th day of May, 2018.

3

5

A

6

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

4

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER - 3