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

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION 

FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

 Plaintiff-in-Interpleader,

 v.

ESTATE OF RICHARD A. YEAKLEY, 

et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. C06-0352RSL

ORDER GRANTING IN

PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S

FEES AND COSTS

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff-in-Interpleader’s Motion

for Attorney’s Fees and Costs.” Dkt. # 27. Plaintiff seeks an award of fees and costs in

the amount of $28,569.50. Although the Estate of Richard A. Yeakley does not oppose

plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that the amount sought by plaintiff is not reasonable

given the purpose of an interpleader action and the activities conducted in this case.

Interpleader is a valuable procedural device allowing insurers such as

plaintiff to petition the courts for an order establishing ownership of the plan proceeds,

thereby avoiding the risk of multiple lawsuits and unnecessary dissipation of the assets. 

Compensable costs should be limited, however, to those costs incurred in preparing the

complaint, obtaining service, and preparing an order discharging the plaintiff-ininterpleader from the action. Trustees of Directors Guild of America-Producer Pension

Benefits Plans. v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 426-27 (9th Cir. 2000). A significant portion of

Case 2:06-cv-00352-RSL Document 30 Filed 09/05/06 Page 1 of 2
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

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION 

FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS -2-

the fees sought by plaintiff were incurred in a failed attempt to affect service on

defendants for which the beneficiaries should not be held responsible. Another thousand

dollars was spent conferring with the Estate regarding strategy and settlement of this

litigation and reviewing the pleadings of the adverse parties, tasks which were not

necessarily in keeping with plaintiff’s role as a disinterested party. Finally, there are a

number of duplicative entries related to the drafting and revision of the complaint (which

should have been a fairly easy and cost-effective task given the similar document filed in

Investment Plan Committee of the Investment Plan for Employees of Puget Sound

Energy, Inc. v. Estate of Richard A. Yeakley, C05-1479RSL) and the Rule 26

conference and report. 

Having reviewed plaintiff’s billing records and the relevant case law, and

having taken into consideration the Estate’s apparent willingness to reimburse plaintiff

for its expenses, the Court finds that an award of $14,000 is appropriate. The Clerk of

Court is authorized and directed to draw a check on the funds on deposit in the registry

of this Court in the principal amount of $14,000 payable to Lane Powell PC. The Clerk

of Court is authorized and directed to draw a check on the remaining funds on deposit in

the registry of this Court in the principal amount of $170,000 plus all accrued interest,

minus any statutory users fees, payable to the Estate of Richard A. Yeakley. 

DATED this 5th day of September, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:06-cv-00352-RSL Document 30 Filed 09/05/06 Page 2 of 2