2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 11-26-2007 

# T om a sk o v . Ira H W eins t o ck PC P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4343

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " T om asko v . Ir a H W ein s t ock PC " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 195. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/195NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N os . 06- 4343 & 06- 4440

____________ RO NAL D T . T OM AS KO, A ppel l ant/ C r os s A ppel l ee,

v. I R A H . W E I N ST O C K , P. C . ; I R A H . W E I N ST O C K , as T rus t ee of the I r a H . W ei ns t ock, P . C. M o n e yP u r c h a s e P e n s i o n P l a n a n d I r a H. W e i n s t o c k , P . C. P r o f i tS h a r i n g P l a n ; I RA H . W E I N ST O C K , P. C . , as Pl an A dm i ni s tr at orof the I r a H . W ei ns t ock, P. C . M oney P u r c h a s e P e n s i o n P l a n a n d I r a H. We i n s t o c k , P . C. P r o f i tS h a r i n g P l a n ; I RA H. W E I N S T O C K , i n d i v i d u a l l y, A pp el l ees/ C ross A pp el l ants .

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 98- cv- 01978) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . A . R ich a rd C a p u to Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember14, 2007 B efore: R E N D E L L , F U E N T E S , and C H A G A R E S , C i rcui tJudg es.

____________ ( Fi l ed N ovember26, 2007) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT2

C H A G A R E S , C irc u it J udge. In th is l o n g -run n ing b en ef it s d ispu te, the D istri ct C o u rth eld th at att o rne yIra W eins tock , in h is i n d ividu al an d ad m inistrati v e c ap ac it ies (co ll ec ti v ely , W eins tock ), v io late d E R IS A b yn o t m a k in g p e n sio n c o n trib u tio n s o n $ 6 ,1 0 0 .0 0 in c o m p e n sa tio n to h is form erempl oy ee ( and curr entcompet i t or ) R onal d T om as ko ( T om as ko) . T he part i es have now cr os s - appea l ed, forthe s econd t i m e, the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on nott o aw ar d ei ther partyatt orney ’ s fee s . U nfor tunat el y , al though thi s cas e has been ongoi ng fornear l yni ne y ear s , and al though t hi s C our thas al r eadycons i der ed, and r emanded on, the i s s ue of att o rne y ’s fe es, w e m u st on ce ag ain v ac ate a n d rem an d that p art of the D istri ct C o u rt ’s d e c isio n th a t co n c e rn e d T o m a sk o ’s f e e re q u e st. W e w ill a f

f irm th e D istric t C o u rt, h o w e v e r, w ith re s p e c t to W e in s to c k ’s f e e re q u e s t. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e onl yforthe part i es , and bec aus e thi s cas e has been be for e us o n ce alread y , see T o m ask o v . W eins tock , 8 0 F . A p p ’x 7 7 9 , 7 8 5 (3d C ir . N o v . 1 7 , 2 0 0 3 ), ours um m aryof the fa ct s i s br i ef. T om as ko w or ked forW ei ns t ock fr om A ugus t13, 1991 u n t i l J a n u a r y2 , 1 9 9 7 , wh e n T o ma s k o r e s i g n e d t o s t a r ta c o mp e t i n g l a w f i r m. As W ei ns t ock’ s empl oy ee, T om as ko part i ci pat ed i n tw o defi ned contr i but i on pl ans governed b yE R IS A . W e in s to c k w a s th e a d m in is tr a to r, s p o n s o r, a n d s o le tru s te e f o r t h e p la n s . T om as ko’ s compensa t i on agr eementi ncl uded pr ovi s i ons foraddi t i onal compensa t i on overand above hi s s al ary , butW ei ns t ock had di s cr et i on t o det erm i ne how m uch Tom as ko3

w oul d be pai d. O n D ece m ber15, 1996, T om as ko r eques t ed $14, 200. 00 i n addi t i onal compensa t i on and bonus es forw or k per form ed forthe fi r m i n 1996. O n J anuary17, 2007, W ei ns t ock pai d T om as ko $6, 100. 00, buttr eat ed the moneyas 1997 – not1996 – compensa t i on. B eca us e the pl ans r equi r ed a pa r t i ci pantt o be empl oy ed byW ei ns t ock on D ece m ber31 t o r ece i ve a pe ns i on contr i but i on forthatpl an y ear , W ei ns t ock’ s tr eatm ent of the $6, 100. 00 as 1997 compensa t i on s aved hi m the pens i on contr i but i ons on that a m o u n t b e c a u s e T o m a s k o re s ig n e d b e f o re D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 1 9 9 7 . T om as ko s ued, as s ert i ng one cl ai m underthe Penns y l vani a W age Paym entand Co l l e c t i o n L a w ( WP CL ) , f o rn o n - p a yme n to f

mo n i e s a l l e g e d l yo we d t o h i m, a n d two cl ai m s underE R I SA , fornon- paym entof pens i on contr i but i ons and forbr eac h of fi duci aryduty . I n O ct ober2001, the D i s tr i ctC our thel d a benc h tr i al , and on D ece m ber 18, 2001 i s s ued i t s deci s i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our trul ed i n favorof Tom as ko on part s of e a c h E R IS A c laim , an d o rd e re d W e in sto c k to m a k e “ a p p ro p ria te c o n trib u tio n s” to T om as ko’ s pens i on pl ans forthe $6, 100. 00 thatW ei ns t ock had i m pr oper l ychar act er i zed a s 1 9 9 7 e a rn in g s . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt ru le d in f a v o r o f W e in s to c k o n th e W P C L c la im . B o th T o m ask o an d W eins tock then m o v ed fo r att o rne y ’s fe es. T h e D istri ct C o u rt d e n ie d b o th m o tio n s , a n d b o th p a rt ie s a p p e a le d . O n O ct ober17, 2003, thi s C our taff i r m ed the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm ent s on the m er i t s , butvaca t ed the deni al of att orney ’ s fee s beca us e the D i s tr i ctC our thad not a n a ly z e d th e a tto rn e y ’s f e e s m o tio n s u sin g th e f

iv e -f a c to r te st a rticu late d b yth is C o u rt in4

U r s i c v. B ethl ehem M i nes , 719 F. 2d 670 ( 3d C i r . 1983) . A ddi t i onal l y , w hi l e the D i s tr i ct C o u rt’s D e c e m b e r 1 8 , 2 0 0 1 d e c isio n h a d d e ter m in e d th a t W e in sto c k b re a c h e d h is fi duci arydutyt o T om as ko, the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s acc om pany i ng O r derdi d notcont ai n any re lief f o r th e b re a c h . T h e re f

o re , this C o u rt re m a n d e d f o r th e D istric t C o u rt to , firs t, cons i derof the appr opr i at enes s of an a w ar d of att orney ’ s fee s us i ng the U r s i c t es t ; and s econd, t o cl ar i fyw hatequi t abl e r el i ef ( i f any ) the D i s tr i ctC our ti nt ended t o aw ar d for the de ni a l of

be ne fi t s orbr e a c h o f f

i du c i a rydu ty . Se e Tomas ko v. W e i ns t oc k, 80 F. A p p ’x 7 7 9 , 7 8 5 (3 d C ir . N o v . 1 7 , 2 0 0 3 ). O n Sept ember5, 2006, the D i s tr i ctC our tagai n deni ed ea ch party ’ s m ot i ons for at t orney ’s fees, bu tgrant ed T om asko eq uit able r el i ef i n the form of p re- j ud gm ent i nter est f o r W e in s to c k ’s b re a c h o f f id u c ia ry d u ty. T h e p a rt ie s h a v e n o w e a c h f ile d a n o th e r a p p e a l. II. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1331 and 29 U . S. C . § 1132( e) ( 1) beca us e thi s act i on ar os e underE R I SA . See 28 U . S. C . § 1331; s ee a l s o 29 U . S. C . § 1132( e) ( 1) ( gr ant i ng fede r al court s excl us i ve s ubj ectm att er j ur i s di ct i on overE R I SA act i ons ) . T hi s C our thas appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 beca us e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s Sept ember5, 2006 O r der , di s pos i ng of al l t he part i es ’ cl ai m s , w as a fi nal or derunderR ul e 54 of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e.5

S e c tio n 5 0 2 (g )( 1 ) o f

E R IS A p ro v id e s th a t “ [ i] n a n ya c tio n u n d e r t h is s u b c h a p te r . .

. b ya p a r t i c i p a n t , b e n e f i c i a r y , o rf

i d u c i a ry , th e c o u r ti n i t s d i s c r e t i o n ma ya l l o w a re a s o n a b le a tto rn e y ’s f

e e a n d c o s ts o f

a c tio n to e ith e r p a rt y .” 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 1 3 2 (g )( 1 ). U nders ect i on 502( g) ( 1) , thi s C our t“r evi ew [s ] a D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s aw ar d ordeni al of att o rne y ’s fe es f

o r ab u se o f d iscreti o n . O u r rev iew o f th e leg al st an d ard s a D istri ct C o u rt appl i es i n t he exe r ci s e of i t s di s cr et i on i s , how ever , pl enary . ” El l i s on v. Shenango I nc. Pens i on B d. , 956 F. 2d 1268, 1273 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( ci t i ng StudentPub. I nt er es tR es ear ch G ro u p v . A .T . & T . B e ll L a b ., 8 4 2 F .2 d 1 4 3 6 , 1 4 4 2 n .3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 8 )) . III . W e fi r s taddr es s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s t at ementof the s t andar d foraw ar di ng att orney ’ s fee s i n E R I SA act i ons . N ext , w e exa m i ne the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s appl i cat i on of three o f th e U rsi c f

ac tors reg ard ing T o m ask o ’s ap p ea l. F inally , w e e n g ag e W eins tock ’s c la im s o n a p p e a l. A . In its S e p tem b e r 5 , 2 0 0 6 o p in io n , the D istric t C o u rt sta ted th a t att orney ’ s fee s s houl d notbe r ece i ved i n an ER I SA s ui tabs entexce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s . W i th onl ythe fi r s tand fi fth [U r s i c] fac t or s w ei ghi ng sli g h tl yin f

av o r of [T o m ask o ], the C o u rtis no t con v ince d that att o rne y ’s fee s ar e w arr ant ed. T her efor e, aft erw ei ghi ng al l of the fa ct or s s etfor th by the Thi r d C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s , the C our tfi nds thatan aw ar d of a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s is n o t a p p ro p ri a te in th is m a tte r. J o in t A p p e n d ix (J .A .) 1 5 .T he conc eptof “e xcept i onal ci r cumst ance s ” i n the fe e aw ar d cont extder i ves 1 fr om the C i vi l R i ght s s t atut es , w her e a pr es um pt i on att ache s that , abs ent“s peci al c irc u m sta n c e s,” su c c e ss f u l p lain tiff

s s h o u ld re c e iv e a tto rn e y ’s f e e s. S e e , e.g ., A lb e m a rle P ap er C o . v . M o o d y , 4 2 2 U . S . 4 0 5 , 4 1 5 (19 7 5 ) (T it le V II) ; N ew m an v . P igg ie P ark E nter s. , 39 0 U . S . 40 0, 40 2 (196 8) ( T i t l e II ). In E l l i son, ho w ever, w e decided ag ai nst i ns t i tut i ng a s i m i l arpr es um pt i on forpr evai l i ng E R I SA pl ai nt i ffs , beca us e the r ol e of E R I SA pl ai nt i ffs i s di s t i ngui s habl e fr om the “pr i vat e att orney s gener al ” r ol e thatpl ai nt i ffs pl ayi n the enf

or cementof the C i vi l R i ght s l aw s . See 956 F. 2d at1274. 6 T hi s i s an i ncorr ects t at ementof the l aw . I ns t ead, ourrul e i s that“ther e i s no pr es um pt i on thata s ucce s s ful pl ai nt i ff i n an ER I SA s ui ts houl d r ece i ve an a w ar d [of at t orney ’s fees] i n the absence o f exc epti on al ci rcum st ances. ” M cP herson v . E m ploy ees’ P e n s io n P la n o f

A m . R e -I n s . C o ., In c ., 3 3 F .3 d 2 5 3 , 2 5 4 (3 d C ir .1 9 9 4 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T hi s i s verydi ffe r entfr om a pr es um pt i on thatpr evai l i ng pl ai nt i ffs ar e note n tit led to at t orney ’s fees “ abs ent

e x c e p tio n a l circ u m sta n c e s.” J.A . 1 5 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). In f a c t, “the def endanti n an ER I SA act i on us ual l ybear s the bur den of a t t orney ’ s fee s forthe pr evai l i ng pl ai nt i ff orpl ai nt i ff c l as s , thus ‘ encour ag[i ng] pr i vat e enf or cementof the s t atut orys ubs t ant i ve r i ght s , w hethertheybe ec onom i c ornoneconomi c, thr ough the j udi ci al pr oces s . ’ ” B r ytus v. Spang & C o. , 203 F. 3d 238, 242 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng R ep o rto f th e T h ir d C ir cu itT ask F o rce , C o u rtA w ard ed A tt o rne yF ee s 1 5 (O ct. 8 , 1 9 8 5 ), rep ri n ted a t 10 8 F . R . D . 2 3 7 , 2 5 0 ). 1 T h e stan d ard fo r gra n ti n g att o rne y ’s fe es in E R IS A ca ses is a leg al st an d ard su b ject t o p lena ryrev iew . S ee B rytus, 20 3 F . 3 d at 24 4 (“w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rt appl i ed the pr opers t andar d i n m aki ng i t s di s cr et i onarydet erm i nat i on i s a ques t i on of l aw7

s ubj ectt o pl enaryr evi ew ”) ; E l l i s on, 956 F. 2d at1273; StudentPub. I nt er es tR es ear ch G ro u p , 8 4 2 F .2 d a t1 4 4 2 n . 3 ; R o d e v . D e lla rc ip re te , 8 9 2 F .2 d 1 1 7 7 , 1 1 8 2 (3 rd C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s under s t andi ng of the s t andar d m ayw el l have a n i m pacton i t s gr ant o r de n ial o f a tt o rne y ’s fe es. T h u s w e w il l vac ate the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de n ial o f T o m ask o ’s att orney ’ s fee m ot i on and r emand forappl i cat i on of the pr opers t andar d foratt orney ’ s fee a w a rd s in E R IS A c a s e s . B. W e p roc ee d to the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ap p li ca ti o n o f th e U rsi c f ac tors to T o m ask o ’s a tto rn e y ’s f

e e m o tio n to g u id e th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s a n a lysis o n re m a n d . U n d e r U rsic , the D istric t C o u rt m u st c o n sid e r th e f o llo w in g f

iv e f a c to rs in decidi ng w hethert o g rantat t orney ’s fees i n E R ISA cases:

( 1) the off

endi ng part i es ’ cul pabi l i tyorbad fa i th; (2) the ab i l i tyof the off end i ng part i es t o sat i sfyan aw ard of att orney s’ fees; (3) the d et err ent effectof an aw ard of att orney s’ fees againstthe o ffen ding part i es; ( 4) the bene fi tconfe r r ed on mem ber s of the pens i on pl an as a w hol e; and ( 5) the r el at i ve mer i t s of the part i es ’ pos i t i on. U rsic , 7 1 9 F .2 d a t 6 7 3 (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). A D istric t C o u rt m u st c o n sid e r a ll fiv e U rsic fa ctors, see A n thu is v. C o ltInd u s. O p era ti n g C o rp., 9 7 1 F . 2 d 9 9 9 , 1 0 1 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ), and i t s cons i der at i on of the fa ct or s i s r evi ew ed forabus e of di s cr et i on, s ee El l i s on, 956 F. 2d at1273. A bus e of di s cr et i on occur s “w hen the j udi ci al act i on i s arbi tr ary , fanc i ful or unr eas onabl e, w hi ch i s anotherw ayof s ay i ng thatdi s cr et i on i s abus ed onl yw her e no re a s o n a b le m a n w o u ld ta k e th e v ie w a d o p te d b yth e tr ia l c o u rt .” U rs ic , 7 1 9 F .2 d a t 6 7 5 .8

I n addi t i on, ther e i s an “a bus e, orm or e ac cur at el ya ‘ m i s us e, ’ of di s cr et i on w her e the tr i al courtut i l i zes i m pr opers t andar ds orpr ocedur es . . . . I n s um , i f the D i s tr i ctC our thas appl i ed the corr ectcr i t er i a t o t he fa ct s of the ca s e, then, i ti s fai rt o s aythatw e w i l l defe r to its e x e rc ise o f

d isc re tio n .” Id . T o m a sk o a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its dis cret i on regar ding t he fir st , second , and thir d U rs i c factor s. 1. T he D i s tr i ctC our tm us tfi r s tcons i der“the off endi ng part i es ’ cul pabi l i tyorbad f a ith .” Id . at 6 7 3 . H e re , the D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t b o th p a rties e x h ib ited c u lp a b le c o n d u c t. W e in sto c k w a s c u lp a b le in tw o w a y s: h e b re a c h e d h is f id u c iar yd u tyto T om as ko outof r es entm entforT om as ko’ s r es i gni ng t o open a c om pet i ng l aw fi r m ; and W e in sto c k d id n o t b e liev e th a t h e w a s tre a tin g T o m a sk o th e sa m e a s o th e r p a rticip a n ts in the pl ans . M eanw hi l e, T om as ko “exhi bi t ed cul pabl e conduc tbyi nt ent i onal l ym i s l eadi ng” W eins tock reg ard ing T o m ask o ’s fu ture p lans o f e m p loym en t. T h e D istri ct C o u rt r ecogni zed, how ever , thatT om as ko’ s “cul pabl e conduc t ” w as “notm at er i al t o the [E R IS A ] claim s. ” A cc o rdin g ly , sinc e b o th p arti es w ere cu lpab le, b u t T o m ask o ’s c u lp a b ili tyw a s im m a ter ial, th e D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th e f

irst f a c to r to “ w e ig h slig h tlyin favor ” of Tom as ko. T om as ko ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on on the fi r s tfac t orby n o t w eigh ing itm o re h ea v il yin h is fav o r. T o m ask o asse rt s tha t, g iven W eins tock ’s c u lp a b le c o n d u c t, th e D istric t C o u rt c o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t th e f irst f a c to r ju st s lig h tly9

fa v o red T o m ask o o n lyif i t gav e w eigh t t o w h at th e c o u rtd esc ri b ed as T o m ask o ’s cul pabl e conduc t . B ut , T om as ko ar gues , cul pabl e conduc tthati s “i m m at er i al ” t o an E R ISA viol at i on shou l d n ot be accorded anyw ei gh ti n a fir stU rs i c factoranaly si s, pr eci s el ybeca us e anys uch cul pabi l i tyhad nothi ng t o do w i th the ER I SA vi ol at i ons att he h e a rt o f th e c a s e . T om asko is corr ect . O ther decis i on s of t his C ou rt , w hen analy zi ng U rs i c’s fi rs t fac t or , have onl ycons i der ed good orbad fa i th w hi ch had adi r ectbear i ng on the pl ai nt i ff’ s obt ai ni ng, orthe def endant ’ s w i thhol di ng, of the ER I SA benef i t s ati s s ue. See M c P h e rs o n , 3 3 F .3 d a t 2 5 7 -5 8 ; E llis o n , 9 5 6 F .2 d a t 1 2 7 5 -7 6 ; M o n k e lis v . M o b a yC h e m ., 8 2 7 F .2 d 9 3 5 , 9 3 6 -3 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 7 ); G ro v e s v . M o d if ied R e t. P lan f

o r H o u rlyP a id E m ps . of J ohns M anvi l l e C orp and Subs i di ar i es , 803 F. 2d 109, 119 ( 3d C i r . 1986) (s e c tio n 5 0 3 c la im ). H er e, bycontr as t , the “c ul pabi l i ty ” of Tom as ko t o w hi ch the di s tr i ctr efe rr ed had t o do w i th T om as ko’ s behavi ori n changi ng j obs . I thad nothi ng t o do w i th w hether T om as ko earned the di s put ed compens at i on i n 1996 or1997. T om as ko di d not , for exampl e, change the dat es on hi s cl i entm emos t o m ake them re fl ectw or k done i n 1996 th a t w a s a c tu a llyd o n e in 1 9 9 7 . It i s u n re a so n a b le f o r a f a c t-f in d e r, ch a rg e d w ith exami ni ng cul pabi l i tyr egar di ng an ER I SA cl ai m , t o des cr i be as “cul pabl e” c onductt hat has nothi ng t o do w i th E R I SA l i abi l i ty . T her efor e, beca us e Tom as ko’ s cul pabi l i tyw as i rr el evantt o t he ER I SA cl ai m s ati s s ue, the D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on by10

c o n sid e rin g w h a t itc o n c e d e d to b e f a c ts “ n o t m a ter ial to th e [ E R IS A ] c laim s” in its anal y s i s of U r s i c’ s fi r s tfac t or . J . A . 12. 2. T he s econd U r s i c fa ct orr equi r es the D i s tr i ctC our tt o exami ne “the abi l i tyof the offe ndi ng part i es t o s at i s fyan aw ar d of att orney s ’ fee s . ” 719 F. 2d at673. T he D i s tr i ct C our tdeci ded thatbeca us e nei therT om as ko norW ei ns t ock appe ar ed t o be of l i m i t ed m eans, becau se both are l aw y ers w orki ng i n the sam e geo graphical l ocati on , and becau se the r eques t ed fe es di d notappea rt oo l ar ge, “[t ] he abi l i tyori nabi l i tyt o paycan be cons trued i n t he s ame m anneragai ns tei therparty . ” J . A . 13. I m por t ant l y , the D i s tr i ct C our tal s o hel d t hatboth part i es coul d be cons i der ed l os i ng part i es , as eac h pr evai l ed on por t i ons of the cl ai m s i n t he ca s e. T he D i s tr i ctC our tthus concl uded thatthe s econd U rs ic f a c to r w a s n e u tr a l. T o m a sk o a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d b yf o c u sin g o n b o th p a rties ’ a b ili tyto p a y , n o t ju st W e in sto c k ’s. T o m a sk o c laim s th a t, as a p re v a ili n g p lain tiff , h is o w n a b ili ty t o payi s “i r r el evantt o t he court ’ s i nqui ry . ” El l i s on vaca t ed and r emanded a D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s deni al of att orney ’ s fee s t o a pr evai l i ng pl ai nt i ff. 956 F. 2d at1277. I n s o doi ng, the C our thel d t hati tw as l egal err ort o appl ythe abi l i tyt o payfac t ort o the pr evai l i ng p arty . Id. W e n o ted th at th e p rev ail ing p arty ’s “a b il ityto p ayis i rreleva n t t o the c o u rt ’s inq u iryinto the p rop ri etyo f re q u ir ing an o ff en d ing p artyto p aya p rev ail ing p arty ’s att orney ’ s fee s and contr adi ct s the s t atut orypurpos e of ER I SA t o pr ot ectpens i on11

b e n e f its.” Id . M o re o v e r, sin c e th e n o n -p re v a ili n g d e f e n d a n t in E lli so n “ d [ id ] n o t d isp u te the s uffi ci encyof the Pl an’ s as s et s t o coveran aw ar d of fe es i n thi s cas e, the D i s tr i ct C our ts houl d have r es ol ved the s econd U r s i c fa ct ori n favorof an a w ar d of fe es ” t o the pl ai nt i ff. I d. H e r e , th e D i s tr i c tC o u r tw a s c o n f r o n t e d w i th tw o s e p a r a t e f e e p e t i t i o n s . We u n d e rsta n d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt’s in q u iryin to T o m a sk o ’s a b ili tyto p a ya ro se f ro m its h o l d i n g th a te a c h p a r tywa s b o th “ p r e v a i l i n g ” a n d “ n o n - p r e v a i l i n g . ” S e e J . A. 1 2 ( “ As not ed above , both part i es can be cons i der ed a l os i ng partys i nce e ach pr evai l ed on por t i ons of the cl ai m s . ”) . W hen cons i der i ng T om as ko’ s fee pet i t i on bas ed on hi s s t atus as a pr evai l i ng party , how ever , the D i s tr i ctC our tw as r equi r ed t o cons i deronl ythe abi l i tyof the o ff en d ing p artyto sa ti sfyan aw ard o f a tt o rne y ’s fe es. S ee U rsi c, 71 9 F . 2 d at 67 3 . In the cont extof Tom as ko’ s fee pet i t i on, the “of fendi ng party ” w as W ei ns t ock, and T om as ko’ s “abi l i tyt o pay ” i s i r r el evant . R ather , the foc us s houl d be on w hether W e in sto c k h a s th e m e a n s to p a ya n a w a rd to T o m a sk o . B yc o n tra st, T o m a sk o ’s a b ili tyto payan aw ar d of att orney ’ s fee s becomes r el evantonl yi n cons i der i ng W ei ns t ock’ s fee pet i t i on and det erm i ni ng w hethert o aw ar d W ei ns t ock att orney ’ s fee s . A ccor di ngl y , t he D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n b yn o t f o c u sin g se p a ra telyo n th e “ o f f e n d in g p a rty ” in eac h fee pet i t i on, and byi nqui r i ng i nt o T om as ko’ s abi l i tyt o payw hen cons i der i ng T om as ko’ s fee pet i t i on. T he s econd U r s i c fa ct orforbi ds i nqui ryi nt o the pocke tof the12

pr evai l i ng party . See El l i s on, 956 F. 2d at1277. Forpurpos es of ana l y zi ng w hether T o m a s k o s h o u ld b e a w a rd e d a tto rn e y ’s f e e s , th e p re v a ilin g p a rt yw a s T o m a s k o . 3. U rsi c n ex t r eq u ir es th e D istri ct C o u rtto an aly ze “the d eterren t eff ec t of an aw ard of att orney s ’ fee s agai ns tthe off endi ng part i es . ” 719 F. 2d at673. I n i t s opi ni on, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notaddr es s T om as ko’ s ar gum entthata fe e aw ar d agai ns tW ei ns t ock w o u ld d e ter W e in sto c k f ro m f u tu re E R IS A v io latio n s. In ste a d , the D istric t C o u rt o n ly d isc u ss e d (a n d re

jec ted ) W e in sto c k ’s a rg u m e n t th a t a f e e a w a rd a g a in st T o m a sk o w o u ld d e te r T o m a s k o f

ro m f ilin g w h a t W e in s to c k d e s c ri b e d a s b a s e le s s c la im s . J .A . 1 3 -1 4 . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our thel d onl ythatthe det err ence fac t orw ei ghed aga i ns tan aw ar d i n favorof W ei ns t ock. T he courtdi d notm ake a nydet erm i nat i ons r egar di ng an a w a rd in f

a v o r o f T o m a s k o . I n hi s appea l , T om as ko poi nt s outthat , i n fac t , he di d ar gue ( i n hi s fee pet i t i on br i ef) thatgr ant i ng att orney ’ s fee s i n hi s favorw oul d det erW ei ns t ock, and he r epr oduces thatpor t i on of hi s fee pet i t i on br i ef a r gum enti n hi s br i ef t o thi s C our t . T om as ko not es thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s om i s s i on m ayhave r es ul t ed fr om i t s r efe r ence t o the w r ong d o c k e t n u m b e r: in its S e p tem b e r 5 , 2 0 0 6 O p in io n , the D istric t C o u rt c ited re p e a ted lyto D ocketN o. 117, w hi ch w as , i n fac t , T om as ko’ s br i ef i n oppos i t i on t o W ei ns t ock’ s fee aw ard m o ti o n . T h e D istri ct C o u rtap p ea rs t o h av e ign o red D o ck et N o . 1 0 7 , h o w ev er, w h ic h w a s T o m a s k o ’s b ri e f in s u p p o rt o f

h is o w n f

e e a w a rd m o tio n .13

B yn o t co n sid e rin g T o m a sk o ’s a rg u m e n ts o n th e d e ter re n t v a lu e o f a f e e a w a rd in hi s favor , the D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tact ed arbi tr ar i l yand d id n o t uti li ze p rop er p roc ed u res f o r co n side ri n g cro ss m o ti o n s w h en itign o red T o m ask o ’s fe e a w ard m o ti o n an d ex am ined o n lyT o m ask o ’s op p o sit ion to W eins tock ’s fe e a w ard m o tio n . S e e U rsic , 7 1 9 F .2 d a t 6 7 5 (a b u se o f d isc re tio n o c c u rs “ w h e n th e ju d icia l ac tio n is arbi tr ary , fanc i ful orunr eas onabl e, ” orw her e the tr i al court“ut i l i zes i m pr opers t andar ds or p ro c e d u re s ” ). C. W e in s to c k a ls o a p p e a ls th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f h is a tto rn e y ’s f

e e m o tio n . T h is ap p ea l i s u tt erlyw ith o u t m erit , b ec au se W eins tock m ere lym ak es su m m ary com plai nts that the D i stri ctC ou rtdid not as si gn the co rr ectw ei gh t s t o thr ee U rs i c factor s, a n d d o e s n o t d e s c ri b e h o w th e s e a lle g e d m is c a lc u la tio n s a m o u n te d to a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . B e c a u se a ll o f

W e in sto c k ’s a rg u m e n ts a ss e rt m ista k e s in a p p ly in g th e f a c ts to th e U rsic fac t or s , w e r evi ew forabus e of di s cr et i on. See B rytus , 203 F. 3d at244; E l l i s on, 956 F. 2d a t 1 2 7 3 . W ei ns t ock fi r s tcl ai m s that“[t ] he C our terr ed w hen i topi ned thatther e i s evi dence thatW ei ns t ock enga ged i n cul pabl e conduc t . ” W ei ns t ock B r . at17. H e as s ert s thati f he had i n fac tbeen mot i vat ed bybad fa i th, he w oul d nothave pa i d T om as ko anythi ng, and th e f a c t th a t h e g a v e T o m a s k o th e $ 6 ,1 0 0 .0 0 is e v id e n c e o f W e in s to c k ’s g o o d f

a ith .14

T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on t o the contr aryi s notan abus e of di s cr et i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on – r eac hed af t erconduct i ng a tw o- daybench tr i al – thatW ei ns t ock w as atl eas ts om ew hatcul pabl e, bas ed on hi s vi ol at i ons of ER I SA , i s notunr eas onabl e, a n d W e in s to c k g iv e s u s n o re a s o n in g , b e y o n d o n e c o n c lu s o ry se n te n c e , w h yit w o u ld b e . N ex t, W eins tock arg u es th at th e D istri ct C o u rterred w h en ith eld th at th e third U r s i c fa ct or– det err ence – w ei ghed aga i ns tan aw ar d t o W ei ns t ock. B eca us e the pens i on pl an ati s s ue i n t hi s cas e no l ongerexi s t s , W ei ns t ock ar gues thatther e i s nothi ng fr om wh i c h h e c a n b e d e t e r r e d . Bu tWe i n s t o c k mi s i n t e rp r e t s th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t ’ s h o l d i n g . As di s cus s ed above , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notrul e on Tom as ko’ s m ot i on fordet err ence a g a in s t W e in s to c k – it o n ly ru le d o n W e in s to c k ’s m o tio n f o r d e te rr e n c e a g a in s t T o m a s k o . I n anyevent , s i m pl ybeca us e W ei ns t ock mayno l ongerbe det err ed w i th r es pectt o the s peci fi c pl an ati s s ue i n t hi s cas e does notm ean thathe ca nnotbe det err ed fr om c o m m ittin g E R IS A v io la tio n s in th e e v e n t h e o p e ra te s p e n s io n p la n s in th e f u tu re . A ccor di ngl y , W ei ns t ock’ s ar gum entm i s s es the mar k, and does nots how abus e of d is c re tio n . F in a lly , W e in sto c k c laim s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t w e ig h p ro p e rlyth e m e rits of the part i es ’ r es pect i ve pos i t i ons . T he D i s tr i ctC our thel d thatthi s fac t orw ei ghed s l i ght l yi n favorof Tom as ko. B eca us e W ei ns t ock pr evai l ed i n part , and bec aus e Tom as ko, acc or di ng t o W ei ns t ock’ s cal cul at i on, onl yr ece i ved 3. 5% of hi s or i gi nal damages demand, W ei ns t ock ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d have he l d thatthi s fac t orw ei ghed i n favor15

of W ei ns t ock. W e mustr emem ber , though, that“[o] ne s eeki ng t o es t abl i s h [] an abus e of di s cr et i on . . . as s um es a hea vybur den, ” and “ the appe l l at e courtm aynotups eta tr i al co u rt ’s ex erc ise o f d iscreti o n o n the b asis o f a v isceral d isag ree m en t w ith the lo w er c o u rt ’s deci s i on. ” U r s i c, 719 F. 2d at675. W ei ns t ock’ s ar gum entcannotcarrythi s bur den. T he D i s tr i ctC our tw ei ghed the part i es ’ r el at i ve s ucce s s , and eve n i f i t s cal cul at i on w as di ffe r entthan ourow n m i ghtbe, the s cal es w er e s quar e. I tthus cannotbe s ai d fr om the re c o rd th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt a b u s e d its d is c re tio n o n th is p o in t. T her efor e, the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s tr eatm entof W ei ns t ock’ s fee pet i t i on w i l l be a f f ir m e d . I V. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s r es ol ut i on of T o m a sk o ’s a tto rn e y ’s f

e e p e tit io n a n d re m a n d f o r c o n sid e ra tio n in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th is o p inion . W e w il l aff

irm the d ec isi o n o f th e D istri ct C o u rtw ith resp ec t t o W eins tock ’s a tto rn e y ’s f

e e p e titio n .