Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02821/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02821-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Louis R. Jarodsky
Appellee
Mercantile Bank Cash Balance Retirement Plan
Not Party
Mercantile Bank Horizon 401(k) Investment & Savings Plan
Not Party
Edward W. Sunder
Appellee
U.S. Bancorp Pension Plan
Not Party
U.S. Bank Pension Plan
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 08-2821

________________

Edward W. Sunder; Louis R.

Jarodsky,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

U.S. Bancorp Pension Plan,

Defendant,

U.S. Bank Pension Plan,

Defendant-Appellant,

Mercantile Bank Horizon 401(k)

Investment & Savings Plan;

Mercantile Bank Cash Balance

Retirement Plan,

Defendants.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

 [UNPUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: January 13, 2010

 Filed: August 5, 2010

________________

Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

________________

Appellate Case: 08-2821 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2010 Entry ID: 3690605
-2-

PER CURIAM.

Appellant U.S. Bank Pension Plan appeals from the district court's award of

attorney fees and costs in favor of Edward W. Sunder and Louis R. Jarodsky

stemming from the favorable district court judgment on their ERISA claims. We

reversed the underlying judgment in favor of Sunder and Jarodsky, see Sunder v. U.S.

Bancorp Pension Plan, 586 F.3d 593, 603 (8th Cir. 2009), and the court held this

attorneys' fee appeal in abeyance pending Sunder and Jarodsky's petition for certiorari

to the Supreme Court. The time for filing a petition for certiorari has lapsed, and the

appellees have not filed a petition.

On May 13, 2010, the court directed the parties to show cause why the district

court's attorneys' fee award should not be reversed. Having received no response from

Sunder or Jarodsky, we vacate the district court's award of attorneys' fees and costs

since the basis for the award no longer exists. See Dillard's Inc. v. Liberty Life Assur.

Co. of Boston, 456 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir. 2006) ("Because Dillard's is no longer the

prevailing party in the underlying ERISA suit, we vacate the district court's award of

attorney's fees and costs.") (per curiam).

The district court's judgment is reversed and its order vacated.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-2821 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2010 Entry ID: 3690605