Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03059/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03059-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 

---

• 

/ , I 

l 

FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

U11ited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

APR 3 0 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk HAROLD SAGE, GEORGIANNA WONG, LONNIE 

LAWTON, MAE DYER, DIANNE BERROTH, 

JEAN ALDEN, RICHARD DOMINGUEZ, 

v . 

Plaintiffs-AppellantsCross-Appellees, 

AUTOMATION, INCORPORATED PENSION PLAN 

AND TRUST, 

and 

Defendant-AppelleeCross-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AUTOMATION, INCORPORATED ) 

PROFIT SHARING PLAN AND TRUST, ) 

HAROLD M. GOODMAN, as Trustee of ) 

AUTOMATION, INCORPORATED PROFIT SHARING) 

PLAN AND TRUST, HAROLD M. GOODMAN, ) 

individually, JANICE M. FINLEY, as ) 

member of Advisory Committee of ) 

AUTOMATION, INCORPORATED PENSION PLAN ) 

AND TRUST, JANICE M. FINLEY, as ) 

member of Advisory Committee of ) 

AUTOMATION, INCORPORATED PROFIT SHARING) 

PLAN AND TRUST, HAROLD M. GOODMAN, ) 

as member of Advisory Committee of ) 

AUTOMATION, INCORPORATED PENSION PLAN ) 

AND TRUST, HAROLD M. GOODMAN, as member) 

of Advisory Committee of AUTOMATION, ) 

INCORPORATED PROFIT SHARING PLAN AND ) 

TRUST, AUTOMATION, INCORPORATED ) 

a Kansas corporation, ) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

Nos. 90-3043 

& 

90-3059 

(D.C. No. 80-4127-S) 

(D. Kan.) 

Appellate Case: 90-3059 Document: 010110105251 Date Filed: 04/30/1991 Page: 1 
' 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, Circuit Judges, and KANE,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable John L. 

District Court for 

designation. 

Kane, Senior District Judge, United States 

the District of Colorado, sitting by 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cases are therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

These appeals arise from the district court's award of 

attorney's fees, imposed against defendant Automation, 

Incorporated Pension Plan and Trust (Trust), pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 

§ 1132(g)(l). Plaintiffs prevailed on one of several claims, 

asserted under the Employees Retirement Income Security Act 

(ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461, challenging the denial of 

plaintiffs' claims for benefits. Section 1132(g)(l) provides, in 

pertinent part, that "[i]n any action under this subchapter 

by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary, the court in its 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 

10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-3059 Document: 010110105251 Date Filed: 04/30/1991 Page: 2 
• 

discretion may allow a reasonable attorney's fee and costs of 

action to either party." 

In appeal No. 90-3043, plaintiffs assert two arguments 

challenging the fee award: 1) the district court erred in 

refusing to impose the fee award against the defendant trustee 

personally; and 2) the district court's fee award was inadequate. 

The Trust, in its cross-appeal, No. 90-3059, asserts that the 

district court abused its discretion in awarding plaintiffs 

attorney's fees. 

In determining whether an award of attorney's fees is 

appropriate and, if so, against whom that award should be imposed, 

the district court is to consider, among other factors, the 

following: 

(1) the degree of the opposing parties' culpability or 

bad faith; (2) the ability of the opposing parties to 

personally satisfy an award of attorney's fees; (3) 

whether an award of attorney's fees against the opposing 

parties would deter others from acting under similar 

circumstances; (4) whether the parties requesting fees 

sought to benefit all participants and beneficiaries of 

an ERISA plan or to resolve a significant legal question 

regarding ERISA; and (5) the relative merits of the 

parties' positions. 

Gordon v. U.S. Steel Corp., 724 F.2d 106, 109 (10th Cir. 

1983)(determining whether award of fees appropriate); see also 

Eaves v. Penn, 587 F.2d 453, 465 (10th Cir. 1978)(using same 

factors in determining proper party against whom to impose fee 

award). 

This court reviews a district court's fee determination made 

under section 1132(g)(l) for an abuse of discretion and will 

overturn that determination only if this court has "a definite 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-3059 Document: 010110105251 Date Filed: 04/30/1991 Page: 3 
• 

conviction that the [district] court, upon weighing relevant 

factors, clearly erred in its judgment." Gordon, 724 F.2d at 

108. An award of attorney's fees under section 1132(g)(l) "is not 

to be done as a 'matter of course,' but is discretionary in 

nature." Id. 

To review effectively the district court's fee determination, 

however, we must be aware of the reasons the district court ruled 

as it did. Id. The record fails to indicate the extent to which 

the district court considered these factors before awarding 

plaintiffs attorney's fees and imposing the fee award against the 

Trust. We, therefore, remand these causes to the district court 

for the provision of an explanation of the fee award in light of 

these five factors. See Pratt v. Petroleum Prod. Management, Inc. 

Employee Sav. Plan & Trust, 920 F.2d 651, 664 (10th Cir. 1990); 

Gordon, 724 F.2d at 108-09. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas is VACATED, and these causes are REMANDED to 

the district court for further proceedings consistent with this 

order and judgment. 

Entered for the Court 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-3059 Document: 010110105251 Date Filed: 04/30/1991 Page: 4