Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01495/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01495-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 08cv1495

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEBRA LESTED,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08 CV 1495 JM (WMC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES,

PREJUDGMENT INTEREST,

AND COSTS

Doc. No. 33

vs.

ALARIS MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.;

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF

NORTH AMERICA; and DOES 1

through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Debra Lested (“Lested”) brought this ERISA action to recover long-term

disability benefits pursuant to a group insurance policy issued by Defendant Life Insurance

Company of North America (“LINA”) to Lested’s employer, Defendant Alaris Medical

Systems, Inc. (“Alaris”). After a bench trial, the court reversed LINA’s decision to deny

benefits to Lested. (Doc. No. 31). Lested now moves for an award of attorney’s fees, costs,

and prejudgment interest pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1). (Doc. No. 33). Defendants filed

an opposition (Doc. No. 34) and Lested filed a reply. (Doc. No. 35). 

The court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument. See

CivLR 7.1(d)(1). For the following reasons, the court hereby GRANTS Lested’s motion for

attorney’s fees, prejudgment interest, and costs. 

Case 3:08-cv-01495-JM-WMC Document 37 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 08cv1495

I. BACKGROUND

After leaving her job as a material handler for Alaris, Lested received disability benefits

from LINA. (Doc. No. 31). When LINA determined that Lested was no longer disabled and

discontinued Lested’s benefits, Lested brought this action to reverse LINA’s decision. (Id.).

Following a bench trial, the court reversed LINA’s decision. (Id.). 

Throughout the litigation, Lested was represented by two attorneys, Charles Fleishman

and Paul Fleishman. (Doc. No. 33, Declarations of Charles Fleishman and Paul Fleishman).

Charles Fleishman is an experienced ERISA litigator. (Id.) Charles Fleishman ostensibly

billed 18 hours to this matter, at an hourly rate of $550. (Id.) Paul Fleishman ostensibly billed

105.6 hours to this matter, at an hourly rate of $300. (Id.) Therefore, Lested requests

attorney’s fees totaling $41,580. In addition, Lested seeks to recover the $350 filing fee as

costs. (Id.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The award of prejudgment interest, attorney’s fees, and costs under ERISA is within

the court’s discretion. Blankenship v. Liberty Life Ins. Co. of Boston, 486 F.3d 620, 627 (9th

Cir. 2007) (citations omitted) (prejudgment interest); Nelson v. EG&G Energy Measurements

Group, Inc., 37 F.3d 1384, 1392 (9th Cir. 1994) (attorney’s fees); Landwehr v. DuPree, 72

F.3d 726739 (9th Cir. 1995) (costs). 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Attorney’s Fees

Under ERISA, a court may award a reasonable attorney’s fee. 29 U.S.C. § 1332(g)(1).

“As a general rule, ERISA employee plaintiffs should be entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee

‘if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the

parties sought in bringing suit.’” Smith v. CMTA-IAM Pension Trust, 746 F.2d 587, 589 (9th

Cir. 1984) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). Lested prevailed in her

suit for disability benefits, therefore she is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee. 

To determine a reasonable attorney’s fee in an ERISA case, the court applies the hybrid

lodestar/multiplier approach. Van Gerwen v. Guarantee Mutual Life Co., 214 F.3d 1041, 1045

Case 3:08-cv-01495-JM-WMC Document 37 Filed 04/08/10 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 08cv1495

(9th Cir. 2000). First, the court determines the lodestar amount by “multiplying the number

of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.” Id. Second, the

court may adjust the lodestar amount using a multiplier based on factors not subsumed within

the lodestar calculation. Id. The multiplier, however, is only proper in exceptional cases

where the lodestar amount is unreasonable. Id. 

A review of the attorneys’ billing records demonstrates that the hours expended by

Lested’s attorneys are reasonable. Appropriately for an experienced supervising attorney,

Charles Fleishman billed only 18 hours to this matter, focusing his efforts on reviewing the

major aspects of the case and attending the early neutral evaluation conference. Paul

Fleishman also focused his time on appropriate tasks such as reviewing the administrative

record, drafting briefs, and attending the bench trial. There is no indication that either attorney

spent unreasonable amounts of time in representing Lested. 

Likewise, the court finds that the attorney’s fees requested by Charles Fleishman and

Paul Fleishman are reasonable. In determining an appropriate hourly rate, the court does not

make reference to the actual rates charged to the prevailing party, rather “billing rates ‘should

be established by reference to the fees that private attorneys of an ability and reputation

comparable to that of prevailing counsel charge their paying clients for legal work of similar

complexity.’” Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 946 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Davis

v. City and County of San Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536, 1545 (9th Cir. 1992)). The requested

rates are comparable to such fees. Cf. Neathery v. Chevron, No. 05cv1883 JM (CAB) (S.D.

Cal. Nov. 2, 2009). 

Finally, the court determines that this is not one of those exceptional cases in which the

lodestar amount is not reasonable. See Van Gerwen, 214 F.3d at 1045. Therefore, the court

awards Lested attorney’s fees in the lodestar amount of $41,580. 

B. Prejudgment Interest

“A district court may award prejudgment interest on an award of ERISA benefits at its

discretion.” Blankenship v. Liberty Life Ins. Co. of Boston, 486 F.3d 620, 627 (9th Cir. 2007)

(citations omitted). The court should exercise its discretion as guided by fairness and a

Case 3:08-cv-01495-JM-WMC Document 37 Filed 04/08/10 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - 08cv1495

balancing of the equities. Landwehr v. DuPree, 72 F.3d 726, 739 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations

omitted). The purpose of prejudgment interest is to fully compensate the plaintiff for “the

losses incurred as a result of [the defendant’s] nonpayment of benefits.” Dishman v. UNUM

Life Ins. Co. of Am., 269 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). As the court has ruled that LINA

discontinued benefits in the face of medical records that “clearly demonstrate her continued

disability,” (Doc. No. 31) the court finds it appropriate to award prejudgment interest. 

“The interest rate prescribed for post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 is

appropriate for fixing the rate of pre-judgment interest unless the trial judge finds, on

substantial evidence, that the equities of that particular case require a different rate.” GroszSalomon v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1154, 1164 (9th Cir. 2001). Lested requests

prejudgment interest at a rate of 5%, because the rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961 is

“historically low.” (Doc. No. 35). The requested rate of 5% is a reasonable approximation of

the time value of the money improperly withheld from Lested. Therefore, the court grants

Lested’s motion for prejudgment interest at a rate of 5% per annum. 

C. Costs

Lested requests costs in the amount of $350 to cover the filing fee. Under ERISA, a

court may allow costs to either party. 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (g)(1). As Lested’s requested costs

are reasonable, the court grants this motion.

IV. CONCLUSION

The court hereby GRANTS Lested’s motion for attorney’s fees, prejudgment interest,

and costs. Attorney’s fees are awarded in the amount of $41,580. Prejudgment interest is

awarded at a rate of 5% per annum. Costs are awarded in the amount of $350. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 8, 2010

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01495-JM-WMC Document 37 Filed 04/08/10 Page 4 of 4