Case ID: f-appx_127/html/0121-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Maura BISCHOFF, et al., Defendants, Sean Petrie as Guardian Ad Litem, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 04-50473.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Feb. 16, 2005.
    
      Linda G. Moore, Frederick Linton Medlin, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Sean J. Petrie, Austin, TX, pro se.
    Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) appeals the district court’s award of attorney’s fees and prospective appellate attorney’s fees to an appointed guardian ad litem, Sean Petrie, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1). We review the award of attorney’s fees for an abuse of discretion. Wegner v. Standard Ins. Co., 129 F.3d 814, 820-21 (5th Cir.1997).

In considering Petrie’s request for attorney’s fees, the district court considered and properly applied the five factor test in Iron Workers Local No. 272 v. Bowen, 624 F.2d 1255 (5th Cir.1980). The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees based on Met-Life’s culpability for the complexity of the litigation, its ability to pay fees, and the deterrent effect of such an award on future conduct. Therefore, the award of attorney’s fees for Petrie’s efforts in the district court is AFFIRMED.

The district court did not explain its decision to award prospective appellate attorney’s fees to Petrie. We conclude that the district court abused its discretion by awarding prospective appellate attorney’s fees. The award of prospective appellate attorney’s fees is VACATED. Petrie may file a separate motion in this court seeking appellate attorney’s fees. See 5th Cir. R. 47.8

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.