Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00258/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00258-11/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTINE ONDERSMA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C-06-0258 MMC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES,

COSTS, AND PREJUDGMENT

INTEREST; VACATING HEARING

Before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Prejudgment

Interest, filed February 14, 2008. Defendants have filed opposition, to which plaintiff has

replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the

motion, the Court finds the matter suitable for decision on the papers, VACATES the March

28, 2008 hearing, and rules as follows:

1. For the reasons stated by plaintiff, and contrary to defendants’ argument, the

Court finds plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees. Although plaintiff has not

made a sufficient showing that defendant denied plaintiff’s claim in bad faith or that other

plans would be deterred by such an award, the position taken by plaintiff was meritorious in

that she obtained the relief she sought under the terms of the plan, defendant does not

Case 3:06-cv-00258-MMC Document 71 Filed 03/24/08 Page 1 of 3
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

The reasonableness of the amount sought is further supported by plaintiff’s decision

not to seek compensation for certain additional work for which such compensation

reasonably could have sought, for example, the time expended in complying with the

Court’s order that the parties meet and confer as to the form of the judgment.

2

Although plaintiff initially sought an award of costs in the amount of $1939.28,

plaintiff, in her reply, has agreed to limit her request to the amount defendants concede is

recoverable. (See Pl.’s Reply at 8:14.)

2

dispute its ability to pay the requested award of fees and costs, and the instant action

established a ruling generally applicable to all plan participants, specifically, that the plan

does not include an unambiguous delegation of discretionary authority to the claims

administrator. See McElwaine v. U.S. West, Inc., 176 F. 3d 1167, 1172 (9th Cir. 1999)

(setting forth factors to be considered with respect to determination of whether award of

fees and costs is appropriate in ERISA action). Further, the Court finds no “special

circumstances” exist that “would render [an] award [of fees and costs] unjust.” See id.

(holding successful ERISA plaintiff ordinarily entitled to award of attorney’s fees and costs

in absence of “special circumstances”).

2. For the reasons stated by plaintiff, and contrary to defendants’ argument, the

Court finds the requested hourly rate of $475 to be appropriate, given counsel’s experience

and the prevailing rates in the community for attorneys engaged in similar practice. (See

Roboostoff Decl. ¶¶ 2-7, 11, Exs. 2-4; Kalkin Decl. ¶¶ 2-8, 12, Ex. 1 ¶ 9; Coleman Decl.

¶¶ 2-9.)

3. For the reasons stated by plaintiff, and contrary to defendants’ argument, the

Court finds the hours claimed, specifically, 163.45 hours, to be reasonable under the

circumstances presented, which circumstances include, but are not limited to, the need of

plaintiff’s counsel to analyze a voluminous administrative record, to respond to defendant’s

motion pertaining to the standard of review, to conduct both legal and medical research

with respect to fibromyalgia, and to prepare for the court-ordered mediation.1

 Accordingly,

plaintiff will be awarded fees in the amount of $77,638.75 ($475 x 163.45).

4. The Court finds plaintiff is entitled to costs in the amount of $1367.31, the amount

both parties agree is recoverable. (See Defs.’ Opp. at 9:16-18.)2

Case 3:06-cv-00258-MMC Document 71 Filed 03/24/08 Page 2 of 3
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

Defendants have not pointed to, nor does the record reflect, any equitable or other

consideration suggesting plaintiff should not be awarded pre-judgment interest. Cf. Shaw

v. International Ass’n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Pension Plan, 750 F. 2d 1458,

1465 (9th Cir. 1985) (affirming decision declining to award pre-judgment interest to

prevailing ERISA plaintiff where defendant established “additional financial strain that an

award of pre-judgment interest would place on the [defendant] could injure other

beneficiaries of its pension plan”).

3

5. For the reasons stated by plaintiff,3 the Court finds an award of pre-judgment

interest is appropriate, and that plaintiff is entitled to pre-judgment interest in the amount of

$21,350.01. (See Ondersma Decl., filed March 14, 2008, ¶¶ 2-4.)

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees,

costs, and pre-judgment interest is hereby GRANTED, as follows:

1. Plaintiff is awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $77,638.75.

2. Plaintiff is awarded costs in the amount of $1367.31.

3. Plaintiff is awarded pre-judgment interest in the amount of $21,350.01.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00258-MMC Document 71 Filed 03/24/08 Page 3 of 3