United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NANCY LANGSTON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NORTH AMERICAN ASSET

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION GROUP

DISABILITY PLAN,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-02560 SI

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

ATTORNEY’S FEES AWARD

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s January 20, 2010 attorney’s fees award came

on for hearing on April 7, 2010. Having considered the arguments of the parties and the papers

submitted, and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s motion.

DISCUSSION

The background facts of this case are set forth in the Court’s January 20, 2010 order granting

plaintiff’s motions for attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest. Jan. 20, 2010 Order at *1 (Docket No.

81). In that order, the Court awarded plaintiff $99,805 in attorney’s fees, $52,400 of which represented

work by lead counsel Laurence Padway at the rate of $400 per hour. Id. at *11. Plaintiff subsequently

sought reconsideration of Mr. Padway’s rate, as plaintiff had requested fees at the rate of $550 per hour.

The Court held a hearing on April 7, 2010 for the purpose of hearing additional evidence and argument

concerning the issue of Mr. Padway’s hourly rate. 

In its original order, the Court declined to award fees at Mr. Padway’s requested rate of $550

per hour primarily due to the Court’s belief that present economic circumstances have resulted in a

Case 3:08-cv-02560-SI Document 105 Filed 04/12/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

depression in attorney’s fees. Mr. Padway explained at the April 7 hearing, however, that in his

experience, the economic downturn has actually resulted in a greater number of denials of ERISA

participants’ claims for disability benefits, increasing ERISA attorneys’ caseloads and consequently

their rates. Viewing the evidence through this lens, the Court no longer believes there is a basis for

reducing Mr. Padway’s hourly rate below the requested rate of $550 per hour. See Welch v. Metro. Life

Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 947-48 (9th Cir. 2007) (once the party seeking fees has established that the rate

sought is “in line with prevailing community rates,” that rate is presumed reasonable but may be

adjusted “on evidence that undermines the reasonableness of the rate requested”). Mr. Padway has

submitted evidence showing that he and other ERISA attorneys of similar experience received fees of

between $500 and $550 per hour during 2009. See Suppl. Padway Decl. ¶ 4 (Docket No. 75) (in 2009,

charged paying clients a flat fee based on an hourly rate of $550); Kantor Decl. ¶¶ 7, 12 (Docket No.

66) (hourly rate for partners at ERISA firm in Los Angeles ranged from $500 to $550 per hour in 2009);

Horner Decl. ¶ 16 (Docket No. 63) (attorney with 15 years of ERISA experienced charged $500 per

hour in 2009); id. ¶ 25 (listing 2009 ERISA fee awards ranging from $500 to $550 per hour). Defendant

has made no attempt to rebut this showing. See Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 980

(9th Cir. 2008) (“The party opposing the fee application has a burden of rebuttal that requires

submission of evidence to the district court challenging the accuracy and reasonableness of the facts

asserted by the prevailing party in its submitted affidavits.”) (citation and alteration omitted). 

Defendant also has not challenged plaintiff’s assertion that while ERISA cases may be less timeintensive than other types of cases, for example civil rights cases, they are no less complex or

challenging. Plaintiff cites a 2009 fee order in which this Court granted fees in the amount of $600 in

a civil rights wrongful death case. See Nov. 10, 2009 Order, A.D. v. State of California Highway Patrol,

No. 07-5438 (Docket No. 144). There has been no suggestion by defendant that the present case was

less complex, though it undoubtedly took less time. See Welch, 480 F.3d at 946 (court must determine

whether hourly rate sought is in line with “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”) (emphasis added). 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. Mr. Padway is awarded fees

Case 3:08-cv-02560-SI Document 105 Filed 04/12/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Defendant’s motion to strike portions of the evidence submitted with plaintiff’s reply brief is

DENIED. (Docket No. 98).

3

in the amount of $550 per hour. For the 131 hours of work he expended on this case, Mr. Padway is

entitled to an additional $19,650 beyond the amount awarded in the Court’s January 20, 2010 order, for

a total fee award of $119,455.1

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is

GRANTED. (Docket No. 87). Plaintiff is awarded an additional $19,650 in attorney’s fees, for a total

of $119,455. The other portions of the Court’s January 20, 2010 order granting costs and prejudgment

interest remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02560-SI Document 105 Filed 04/12/10 Page 3 of 3