Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_04-cv-03019/USCOURTS-arwd-3_04-cv-03019-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 29:1002 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

MARY L. McBRIDE PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 04-3019

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY

OF AMERICA DEFENDANT

O R D E R

Now on this 9th day of February, 2007, comes on for

consideration Plaintiff's Motion For Attorneys' Fees And Expenses

(document #31), and from said motion, the supporting documentation,

and the response thereto, the Court finds and orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this ERISA case, and

now moves for an award of attorney's fees and costs. Defendant

makes the following objections to the motion:

* plaintiff has failed to demonstrate an entitlement to

fees;

* the motion is not timely;

* there is no affidavit setting out the time and tasks for

which reimbursement is sought;

* there is no way to distinguish attorney time from

paralegal time;

* there are unwarranted and excessive entries in the list

of services rendered;

* the hourly rates for both attorney and paralegal time are

excessive;

* the request for costs is not sufficiently detailed.

Case 3:04-cv-03019-JLH Document 36 Filed 02/09/07 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

2. Several of these objections may be summarily dealt with:

* It was not necessary that plaintiff brief the basis of her

entitlement to an award of fees, because in the same Order wherein

it found benefits payable, the Court found that plaintiff was

entitled to an award of attorney's fees. 

* The Court has already considered the untimeliness of the

motion, and determined in connection with the telephone conference

on this matter held on January 29, 2007, that it would allow

plaintiff to file the motion if that could be done within a few

days. Plaintiff filed the motion that same day. 

* While it is true that there is no affidavit setting out

the time and tasks as required by Local Rule 54.1, the Court finds

it appropriate to treat the motion itself, with its supporting

documentation, as an affidavit, given that the attorney signing it

is an officer of the court and his declaration is "virtually made

under oath." U.S. v. Cox, 580 F.2d 317, 322 (8th Cir. 1978). 

* The request for costs, in the sum of $370, while not

supported by documentation, appears reasonable in light of the

nature of the case and the types of documentation necessarily

obtained to pursue it.

4. The objections as to unwarranted and excessive entries are

also easily dealt with. The Court does not find the entry of one

hour relating to the affidavit for service excessive, given that

other tasks were included. The Court does find the entries for

preparation of interrogatories and review of responses thereto to be

Case 3:04-cv-03019-JLH Document 36 Filed 02/09/07 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
While the motion asserts that the hourly rate sought for attorney time is 1

$350/hour, the statement of services rendered computes a sum based on $250/hour. 

-3-

unwarranted, given that ordinarily discovery does not take place in

an ERISA judicial review, and will deduct 1.5 hours for those

entries.

5. The remaining objections give the Court greater pause.

First, it is impossible to tell from the motion which tasks were

performed by an attorney, and which by a paralegal. There is only

the bare assertion that 19.25 hours of attorney time and 29.75 hours

of paralegal time are involved. Second, the hourly rates claimed

($250/hour for attorney time and $125/hour for paralegal time) are 1

excessive. In addition, although the issue was not raised by

defendant, the Court notes that under current Eighth Circuit

precedent, attorney's fees in ERISA cases are not recoverable for

pre-litigation administrative proceedings. Parke v. First Reliance

Standard Life Insurance Co., 368 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 2004). 

The Court believes the fairest way to resolve these problems is

as follows. First, the Court will deduct 19.50 hours from the total

number of hours claimed. That number represents the time expended

at the administrative level and the time expended on

interrogatories. The remaining 30 hours of time expended in

representing the plaintiff in this case will be apportioned 12 hours

to attorney time and 18 hours to paralegal time -- which

approximates the approportionment of time between attorney and

paralegal for the hours actually claimed by plaintiff. 

Case 3:04-cv-03019-JLH Document 36 Filed 02/09/07 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

As to the rate, the Eighth Circuit has held that "courts may

draw on their own experience and knowledge of prevailing market

rates" in setting attorney's fees. Warnock v. Archer, 397 F.3d

1024, 1027 (8th Cir. 2005). Given the nature of this case, and the

quality of the representation, the Court finds that $150/hour is a

fair and reasonable rate for the attorney's time, and $60/hour is

appropriate for paralegal time. That computes to $1,800 for attorney

time and $1,080 for paralegal time. 

Combining the costs, attorney time, and paralegal time, the

Cuort concludes that a fee of $3,250 is appropriate in this matter.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion For Attorneys'

Fees And Expenses (document #31) is granted, and a fee of $3,250

will be included in the final judgment to be entered in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03019-JLH Document 36 Filed 02/09/07 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>