## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 10

- 1889 & 10

- 3083 L I S A P AKOV I CH, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. V ERI Z ON LTD P LA N , D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 3:09- cv-00090- MJ R- PM F

—Mi ch ael J . Reagan, Judge .
A RGUED A PRI L 6, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 22, 2011

Befo re F LA UM, E VANS, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudge

. Th is case com es to us f or a seco nd ti m e. Li sa Pako vi ch w or ked as a re tai l sa l es re prese nt at i ve f o r Ve r i zo n whe n sh e be ca m e di sabl ed an d sou gh t long-term di sab il ity benefits un d er Verizon ’s ER I SA p l an ( “the Plan”) aftera ser i es ofbac k s urge ri es. O n th e firs t a p p ea l, w e re ve rs ed th e d ist ric t c o u rt ’s d ec isi on that Pak ovi ch w as i nel i gibl e f orl ong-t er m di sab i l i tyb en efi ts a fter the fi r stt wenty - f o urmonths a nd2 N os. 10

- 1889 & 10

- 3083

re m anded to Bro adspir e S er vi ces, I nc. , the Pl an A dm i ni str a t o r, t o d e t e r mi n e h e r e l i g ib i l i t y f o r b e n e fi t s d ur i ng tha tt i me pe r i o d. H avi ng not hear d fro m the Pl an f or al m ostfi ve mo n th s , P a k o v i c h a g a i n fi l e d s u i tu n d e r E R I S A, th i s t i me cl ai m i ng tha t the Pl an’ s s i l en ce c onst i tuted a deem ed de ni a l o fh e r b e ne fi tc l a i m. S he r e qu e s t e d d i s a b i l i ty b e ne fi t s p ur s ua ntt o ER I S A § 5 0 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B), 29 U. S
. C. § 1132 (a)( 1)(B ), and attorn ey fees pu rsu an t to ER I SA § 5 02( g) , 29 U
. S. C. § 1 132( g)
. A l i ttle o vera m onth l ate r, the Pl an i nfo rm ed herthati t would pay the b enefi ts she r equ es te d i n herco m pla i nt and shor tl y there after m oved to dism iss the cas e as m o o t . Th e d istri ct cou rt d en ied the m oti on, i ssued a j ud gm ent a gai nst the Pl an f o r the e xa cta m o unti t ha d a g r ee d t o pa y Pa k o vi ch, a nd l ate r denie d Pakovi ch’s m oti on f orfees . W e v a c a t e th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n g r a n t i ng Pa k o vi chs um m ar y j udg m en t o n h erb en efi t cl ai m , b ut affi rm i ts denia l o fherfee re quest.

I . B a c kg r o und Pako vi ch i ni ti al l y fi l ed sui t under ER I SA § 502 ( a) ag ai nst Broadspi re , se eking l ong- ter m di sabil i ty benefi ts f ro m th e ERI S A Pl ana fte r Br o ads pir e det er m i ne d tha t sh e w as no l ong er entitled to them ( “ Pakovi ch I”)
. The d istr i ct cour t co ncl ud ed that Broadspi re ’ s deci si on to t er m i nate P a k o vi c h ’ s l o n g - t e r m d i s a b i l i t y b e n e fi t s u n d e r th e “ o wn occupati on” sta nd ar d (under w hi ch Pako vi ch m ust h av e been unabl e t o perf or m the ess enti alfuncti ons ofN os. 10

- 1889 & 10

- 3083 3

The su i twas or i gi nal l y fi l ed a gai ns tBro ads pi re , Veri zon 1 Com m uni c at i ons , I nc . , an d AET N A Ins ur anc e Com pany , but the Pla n w as later su b stituted as the p ro p er d efend an t. her sal es posi ti on with Veri zon to re cei ve benefi ts) was arbi tr ar y a nd capr i ci ous, and thus that Pak ovi ch was en ti tl ed to di sab i l i tyb en efi ts fo r the fi r stt wenty - f o ur m onths. I t furtherf ound that s he was n ot enti tl ed to disabi l i ty b enefi ts beyo nd twenty- f our m onths because sh e d id n ot qu ali fy un d er the “a ny occu p ation” sta nd ard ( u n d erwh i ch benefi ts w er e a vai l abl e o nl y i fPako vi ch w as disabled fro m al l o ccupati ons)
. I t thus aw ar ded Pako vi ch benefi ts f ro m M ay 14, 20 04, thr ough J uly 16, 2004, but denie d benefi ts beyo nd J uly16
. On app eal, w e rev er sed the d i str i ct court ’ s deci si on that Pa k o vi chwas ine l i g ibl e f o r b en efi ts b ey o nd t wenty - f o ur m onths an d r em anded to the Pl an A dm i ni str ato r to d e t e r mi n e h e r e l i g ib i l i t y f o r b e n e fi t s d u r i n g th a tt i me p er iod

. P ako vich v. Broa dspire Servs. , Inc. , 53 5 F .3d 60 1, 60 7 ( 7th C ir. 20 08)
. W e a l so denie d her re quest forat torney fee s, co s t s , an d ex p en se s in c u rre d on ap p ea l. Id. We issued our op inion on July 24, 2008 , and the d istri ct cou rt re m an ded Pako vi ch’s cl ai m to the Pl an A dm i ni str ato r on S eptem ber4, 20 08. H av i ngno t he ar d whethe r the Pl anwoul d p ay“ an y occupati on” benefi ts f oralm ost fi ve m onths, Pako vi ch fi led a sec o n d su it ( “ P ako vich II”) o n J anuary30 , 20 09, unde r ERI S A § 5 02 ( a) ( 1) ( B) , th is t i m e ag ains t th e Pl an, 1 cl ai m i n g th at the Pl an’ s f ai l ure to deter m i ne herbene fi ts be twe enS ept embe r 4, 20 08 , a nd J an ua r y 2 9, 2 00 9, c o n-4 N os. 10

- 1889 & 10

- 3083 st i tu te d a “ dee m ed den ial ” of h erb en efi ts c l ai m . S he soughtal l the benefi ts to w hi ch she w as enti tl ed under th e te r m s o fthe Pl an, i nt er es t o n al l unpai d am o unt s, a nd l eg alfee s, c o st s, a nd e xpe ns es i nc ur r ed i n pursu in g the c ase . On M ar ch6 , 2 00 9, a l i tt l e o ve r a month a fter fi l i ng P ako vich II

, Pakov ich’s cou ns e l le arn ed from the P lan’s cl ai m hand ler th atthe Pl anha d a g r ee d t o pa y he r “ an y occupati on” benefi ts f ro m J uly15 , 2004. On A pri l 7, 20 09, Pako vi ch w as sent a l ett er w i th a check that pai d b ack be ne fi ts a nd pa stdue i nt er es t o wed s i nc e 2 00 4. The l ett eral so ind i cate d that Pa kov i ch w oul d conti nue to re cei ve benefi ts f ro m the Pl an as l ong as she r em ai ned quali fi ed. The paym ents com pensated Pako vi ch for th e e n tir e a m ou n t s h e s ou g h t for h er be n efit cla im in P ako vich II
. O n Ap r i l 1 4 , 2 0 0 9 , th e d e fe n d a n t s i n P ako vich IIfi l ed a m o t ion to d ism iss u n d er Fe d er al R u le of C ivil Pr o ce dur e 12 ( b) ( 1) f o r l ac ko fs ubj ec t m at te r j ur i sdi ct i o n, ar gui ng tha t the cas e was m oo t be c au se the Pl an had pai d the b en efi ts Pa k o vi chs o ug hti n h erc o m pl ainta nd agr eed to co nti nue payi ng the m i n the fu ture as l ong as she re mai ne d e l i g ib l e . Aft e r the di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni ed the m oti on, Pako vi ch fi l ed a m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm en t th ats o ught monthl y b en efi ts i n the a m o untthe Pl anwas alr eady pa y i nghe r a nd a tt o r ne y fee s. The Pl an cr oss - m ove d fo r sum m ar y j ud gm ent. O n M a r ch 24, 2010 , the d istri ct cou rt grante d sum m ary j u d gm en t f orPako vi ch, co ncl ud i ng tha t s he was dis abl ed unde r the “ an y o cc up ati o n” s ta nda r d a nd o r der i ngthe P lan to p ay P ak ov ich d isa b ility be n efit s o n a m on th lyN os. 10

- 1889 & 10

- 3083 5 ba si s unt i l s he tur ne d s i xty - fi ve y ea r s o l d o r Ve r i zo n, con si st en t wi th th e te r m s o f th e Pl an an d ERI S A, det erm i ned that Pako vi ch w as no l onge r enti tl ed to the benefi ts. The di str ict cour t deni ed Pako vi ch’s r equest f orat torney fees i n a s epara te opi ni on a nd l ate r rej ecte d he r Rul e 60 mot i o n t o r ec o ns i dertha t dec i si o n. The Pl an appeal s the di str i ct c ou rt’ s deci si on that Pako vi ch’s be nefi t cl ai m was not m oo t, and Pako vi ch appeal s the di str i ct c ou rt ’s deni alo fherr equest f orfees . A fterbr i efl y d iscussing j uri sdic ti on, we re vi ew ea ch ar g um en t i n tur n.

I I . Discussi on A . Ap pell at e J uri sdict i on Br i efi ngc am e i n t wo r o unds , the fi r sta ddr es singthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s m o o tn es s dec i si o n, the s ec o nd r eg ar di ng its den ialof Pa kovich ’s m otion for fees. T he first bri efs debate w hetherthe m att erwa s a final o rderunder 28 U .S.C . § 12 91 w h en th e d ist r i c t c o u r t h ad ye t t o ru le on Pak ovi ch’s m oti on f orfees . Thi s c as e com es to us as o n e c o n s o l i d a t e d a p p e a l wi th n o th i n gp e n d i n gi n the dist ri ct c ourt
. W e thus exer ci se j uri sdic ti on pursuant to 28 U
. S. C. § 1 291.

B. M oot ness Pa k o vi ch ’ s co m pl ainti n P ako vich IIseeks long-term d isabil it y b e n e fi t s u n d e r a d e e m e d d en ialtheory

— cl ai m ing that the Pl an had not noti fi ed Pako vi ch ofwh ether6 N os. 10

- 1889 & 10

- 3083 sh e was e l i g ibl e f o r b en efi ts unde r the “ an y o cc upa ti o n” p rovisi on alm ost fi ve m ont hs after the d istri c t cou rt re m anded hercase to the Pl an A dm i ni str ato r

— and l ega l fee s u n d er E R ISA § 50 2(g ), E R ISA ’s fe e-s h iftin g p ro visi on. Despi te the f act that the Pl an had pai d Pakovi ch the b enefi ts she r equeste d i n herco m pla i nt and ag re ed to con tinu e pa ying into th e futu re, the d ist r ict court deter m i ned that Pako vi ch’s cl ai m f orbene fi ts w as not m oo t. I t th en gr anted Pako vi ch sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n her benefi ts cl ai m , or d er ed the Pl an to pay her l ongterm d isabil ity ben efi ts, an d later d en ied P a kovich ’s re quest forat torney fees . O n ap p eal, the P lan argu es t h a t t he district cou rt l acke d subj ect m att erj uri sdic ti on be cause the c ase was m oo t a fteri t a gr eed to pay th e be nefi ts Pako vi ch re quested i n h er co m pla i nt. “ ‘ W hethera case has been r e nd e r e d mo o ti s a que s t i o n o fl a w tha twe r e v i e w de novo . ’ ” Z essar v. Keit h , 53 6 F
. 3d 788, 79 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( quoti ng Fed’n of Adv er . Indus. R epres ent ative s, Inc. v. City of Chi. , 3 2 6 F
. 3 d 9 2 4 , 9 2 8

- 2 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 20 0 3 ) )
. We concl ud e that Pak ovi ch’s bene fi t cl ai m bec am e m oo t w hen the Pl an pai d i t in full, bu t th at the dis tr i ct cour t r et ai ned equit abl e j uri sdic ti on t o adj ud i cate her fe e c l a i m. F ede r alc o ur ts l ac ks ubj ec t m at te rj ur i sdictio n whe n a c as e b ec om es m oo t. In re R eposi tory Techs
. , Inc. , 60 1 F
. 3d 71 0, 71 6-1 7 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); C ornucopia Ins t. v. U .S. D ep’t of Agric. , 56 0 F
. 3d 673, 67 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. A ccor d i ngl y, “i fan e vent occur s while a case i s pending

. . . that m ake s i t i m possibl e f ort he co urt to gr ant a ny effectualN os. 10

- 1889 & 10

- 3083 7

re l i efwh ate verto a preva i l i ng par ty, the [case ] m ust be dism i sse d.” C ornucopia Ins t. , 56 0 F
. 3d at 676 ( i nt ernal qu otation m arks a nd citations om itted ). W hile an “en tire c l a i m i s n o tmo o t e d s i mpl y b e c a us e the sp ec if ic re l i ef i t s ought has b een render ed m oo t, [ to avo i d dism i ssa l b as ed on m oo tn es s, t h e p ar ty se ek in g re lief] m u st
. . . dem onst ra te that the c ourt ’ s a dj ud i cati on would affect i t in so m e way. ” Id. ; s e eal s o Unite d S t at e s v. Segal, 43 2 F. 3d 767, 77 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( “W hen m ak in g a m oo tness d et er m in at ion , w e c on sid er . . . w h et h er it is st ill po ss ibl e to f as hi o n som e f o r m of m eani ng fulr el i eft o the [ pla i nti ff ] i n the eve nt he preva i l s on the m er i ts. ” ( i nter nal quotati on m ar ks and ci tat i ons om i tte d))

. Im p or tantl y, a cl aim for fee s ca nno t sa ve a c as e f r o m b ec o m i ng m oo t. C ornucopia Ins t. , 56 0 F
. 3d at 676. W e a gr ee w ith th e P lan th at P ak ov ich ’s b en ef i t c l a i m is m o o t an d tha t th e d ist r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n c o nc l udi ng o th er wi se . Af te r Pa k o vi chfi l ed her c o m pl ainta nd b efo re th e P lan m ov ed for d ism iss al, th e P lan p aid Pako vi ch the benefi ts she re quested i n her c om p lai nt, i nc l udi ngthe am ou nt s he was o wed a t th e ti m e an d the properam ount g oi ng f or w ar d. Si nce Pak ovich had rec e i v e d e v e r y th i n gs h e r e q u e s t e d i n h e r b e n e fi tc l a i m, that cl ai m bec am e m oo t a nd the dist rict co urt l acke d j ur i sdi ct i o n t o e nt ers um m ar y j udg m en t a g ains t th e P lan

. Se eSi l k v. M e t r o. Li f eIns . Co. , 310 Fed. A p p x . 138, 1 3 9

- 1 4 0 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( fi n d i n gth a ta cl ai m f o r “ o wn o cc upa ti o n” b en efi ts b ec ame moo t a ft erthe de fen dan t p aid th e b en efit s) (n ots e l ec te d for p u b lica tio n ); see also C ornucopia Ins t. , 560 F.3d at6 7 5

- 76 (h old in g t h at a FO IA c laim b e c o m es m oo t a fte r th e g ov er n m en t p ro d u c es all8 N os. 10

- 1889 & 10

- 3083 d ocu m en ts a p lai nt iff requ ests); Holst ei n v. City of C hi. , 29 F. 3d 1145 , 11 47- 48 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) ( fi nd i ng a cl ai m m oot w here the defe nd an t o ffer ed the pla i nti ffal l dam age s to w hich he w as en titl ed ). Fi nd i ng Pak ovi ch’s b en efi t cl ai m m oo t l eave s us w i th a m o r e c ha ll en ging qu estion. Bec au se “a claim f or attorn ey s’ fe es is se p ar at e fro m th e m er its of th e a c tio n,” C ornucopia Ins t. , 56 0 F
. 3d at 676 ( ci ti ng Budi ni ch v. Be ct on D i ck i ns on & Co. , 48 6 U.S
. 19 6, 20 0 ( 1988 ) ), w e m ust add re ss w hetherthe dist ri ct c ourtr eta i ned j uri sdic ti on to adj ud i cate Pako vi ch’s cl ai m f orat torney fees under E R ISA § 50 2(g ) aft er h er u n d er lyin g b en e f i t cla im b e c a me moo t
. We c o nc l ud e tha ti tdi d. I n the FOI A co ntext, co urts exerci se equi tabl e j uri sdic

ti on t o adj ud i cate fee cl ai m s in si m i l arci rcum sta nces. Speci fi cal l y, w hen a pla i nti ffse eks i nfo rm ati on under FO IA a n d as so c iat ed at to rn ey fee s, co u rt s re ta in equi tabl e j uri sdic ti on t o adj ud i cate th e fee cl ai m after th e def en d ant pr o duce s th e r eque st ed i nf o r m at i o n a nd th u s r e n d er s t h e F O IA cla im m oo t. Se e, e . g. , C ornucopia Ins t. , 560 F.3d at67 6-7 8; Ande rs on v. U .S. D ep’ tof He al t h & H um a n S ervs. , 3 F. 3d 1383 , 13 85 ( 10th Cir
. 199 3) ( “Dis

m i ss i ngthe [ F OI A] ac ti o n a s m o o t
. . . di d no t affec t pl ainti ff’ s r i ght t o see k a tto rney ’s fees ; the fee re quest ‘su rv ive [d ] ind ep en d en tly u n d er th e c ou rt ’s e q u ita b le j uri sdic ti on. ’ ” ( quoti ng Cart e rv. Ve t e r ans Adm i n. , 78 0 F.2d 147 9, 1481 ( 9th Cir. 1986)). W e ext en d our FO I A j urisp rud en ce into th e E R I SA c o n t e x t, an d h old th at w h er e a p lan p ar tic ip an t o r b en efici ar y s ue s to r ec o ver be ne fi ts unde r ERI S A § 5 02 ( a) o n aN os. 10

- 1889 & 10

- 3083 9 d eem ed de nial theory an d atto r n e y fees u nd er ER I SA § 50 2(g ), an d th e pla n p ay s th e be n efit c laim in fu ll sh or tly aft er t h e p lain tiff files su it, co u rt s re ta in eq u ita b le j uri sdic ti on t o adj ud i cate the fee cl ai m . W er e co urts to l a c k jur isd ict ion , op p or tu n ist ic p lan s c ou ld rou tin ely d ela y d ec id in g w h et h er t o p ay b en efit c laim s u n til p ar tic ipan ts a nd b en efi ci ar i es f il e sui t, e ffec ti ve l y r equi r i ng th em to i nc ur legal costs un recove rable un d er ER I SA § 502(g) i n ord er to receive ben efi ts to w hich they are l ega l l y e nti tl ed. I n thi s ca se, i fpl ans routinel y pay bene

fit c laim s in fu ll sh o r t l y a fte r p ar tic ip an ts an d be n efici ar i es fi l e s uit, se eking, per haps, to avo i d havi ng to paythe pl aint i ff’ s co st s f o r b r i ng i ngthe ERI S A su i t, pl an s coul d si gni fi cantl y b l unt ER I SA § 5 02( g)
. That pro vi si on p e r mi t s c e r t a i n E R I S A p l a i n t i ff s w ho ac h i e v e “ s o me degre e o fs u c c es s o n the m er i ts” o fthei r ER I SA suit s t o re c ove r the l ega l co sts theyi ncurr ed i n achi evi ng tha t su c c es s. Har dtv. Re l i anc eSt anda r d L i f eIns . Co. , 1 3 0 S
. Ct. 2149 , 21 52, 21 58 ( 2010 ) ( quoti ng Rucke l s haus v. Si e r r a Cl ub , 46 3 U .S. 68 0, 69 4 (1 98 3)); see also 29 U
. S. C
. § 1132(g). Thu s, i fco u rts l acke d j uri sdic ti on o vercl ai m s f or att or ne y fees i n case s l i ke Pako vi ch’s , a fi nanci albar ri er to s ee king ERI S A be ne fi ts woul d e xi sts uchtha t pl ainti ff s s houl d sue f orbene fi ts only i fthei r expected r e c o v e r y o fb e n e fi t s e x c e e d e d th e i r l e g a lfe e s . S uch a barrier w ou ld con trad ict one of ER I SA ’s p r im ary p o l i c i e s , t o p r o t e c t“ th e i n t e r e s t s o fp a r t i c i p a nt s i n e mplo ye e b en efi t pl ans a nd thei r benefi ci ar i es . . . by pro v i di ngf o r a pp r o pr i a t e r e med i e s , s a nc ti on s , a nd r e a dy acces s t o the F edera l co urts
. ” 2 9 U.S.C . § 1001( b)

. Per m i ttin gc o u r t s t o e x e r c i s e e q u i t a b l e j u r i s d i c t i o n th u s e ff ec tu
-10 N os. 10

- 1889 & 10

- 3083 at es Co ng r es s’ s i nt en t. Af te r c o nc ludi ngtha t th e d ist ric t c ou rtret ain ed j u ris d ict ion ov er P ak ov ich ’s c laim f orat torney fe es , we now tur n to the substa nce o fi ts dec i si o n.
C. Att orney Fees Pako vi c h r eq ueste d atto rneyfees and cos ts und er ERI S A § 5 02 ( g ) f o r he r a ppea l i n Pakovich Ia nd f o r the en tire t y of P ako vich II
. W e deni ed herr equest f orfees an d c o st s i nc ur r ed o n a ppea l in Pakovi ch I
. After, the di st r i ctc our t den i ed he r r eque stf o r fee s i n P ako vich II an d h er m o t i o n fo r re c on sid er at ion u n d er Fe d er al R u le ofCi vi l Pro cedure 60(b) , wh i ch perm i ts cour ts to “r el i eve a pa r t y . . . fr o m a fi n a l j u d g me n t, o r d e r, o r p r o c e e di ng for

. . . m is t a k e , in ad ve rt en c e, su rp ris e, or e x c u sa b le negl ect, ” a nd , am ong othe r thi ngs, f or“a ny o ther re aso n that j usti fi es re l i ef

. ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). Pa k o v i c h c ha l l e ng e s the di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s de ni a l o fher fee c l ai m unde r ERI S A § 5 02 ( g ) a nd he r mot i o n t o r ec o nsi der. W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s in iti aldeci si on f o r a b u se of d isc re tio n, Her man v. Ce n t
. S t at e s , S e . & Sw
. Are a s Pe n s i o n F und, 4 23 F. 3d 68 4, 6 95 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) , a nd “w e ap p l y a n ‘ extr em el y defer enti al ’ abuse o fdi scr eti on sta nd ar d” w hen r evie w i ng the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo f P ak ov ich ’s m ot ion for re c on sid er at ion , E s kr i dgev. Cook Cn ty. , 57 7 F
. 3d 806, 80 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( quoti ng E a sley v. K irm see, 38 2 F
. 3d 693 , 6 97 (7th Cir

. 20 04) )
. “Because r el i efunde r Rul e 60 ( b) i s ‘ ane xt r ao r di na r y re m edya nd i s g r a nt e d o nl y i n e xc e pt i o na l c i r c ums t a nc e s , ’ a di s t ri ctN os. 10

- 1889 & 10

- 3083 11

c ou rtab u se s it s d isc re tio n on ly w h en ‘n o re as on ab le pe r s o n c o ul d a g r e e ’ wi th the de c i s i o n t o de nyr el i ef .” Eskr i dge, 57 7 F .3d a t 809 ( quoti ng M cCor m i ckv. Ci ty of C hi. , 230 F.3d 319 , 327 (7th C ir. 2000)). ER ISA § 502( g) ( 1) pro vi des that“[ i ] n any acti on under th is s ubc ha pte r . . . b y a pa r ti ci pan t, b en efi ci ar y, o r fi duc iar y, th e c ou rtin i t s d isc re tio n m ay allow a re as on ab le a t t o r ne y ’ s fe e a nd c o s t s o fa c t i o n t o e i the r pa r t y . ” 2 9 U. S
. C. § 1132 (g)( 1). W he n the d istri ct cou rt de nied Pakov ich’s fee peti ti on, o ur c as e l aw pro vi ded thato nl y “ prevailing p arties” w ere en titl ed to recove r un d e r ER I SA § 5 02 (g)(1 ). Se e, e . g. , Sulli van v. Wil liam A. Rand olph, Inc. , 5 0 4 F
. 3 d 6 6 5 , 6 7 0 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 )
. S i n c e , t he S u p r e me Cou r t he l d t ha t “ a fee c l ai m an t ne ed no t be a ‘ pr ev ai l i ng party ’ to be el i gibl e f or an att or ney’ s fees aw ar d u n der § 1 132( g) ( 1)
. ” Har dt, 130 S.C t. at 21 56 ; s ee a lso Huss v. IBM M e d. & D ent al Pla n , No s . 1 0

- 1 0 6 1 , 1 0

- 2 74 9 , s l i p o p. at 27, 2011 W L 1388 543, at *12 (7th Cir. A p r. 13, 201 1). I n s t e a d , i t e x p l a i n e d th a t a c l a i ma n t mu s t s h o w “ ‘ s o me degre e o fsucce ss on the m er i ts’ befor e a co urt m ay aw ar d atto rney ’ s fees u n d er § 1132 ( g) ( 1)
. ” Id. at 2158 ( quoti ng R uc ke l s haus , 46 3 U.S
. at69 4)
. I t furtherwrote th at “ ‘tr ivia l su c c es s o n th e m er its ’ or a ‘p u re ly p ro c ed u ra l vic to r[y ]’ ” is ina d eq u a t e , b u t t h at it is su ffi ci en t “i fthe c o ur t ca n f ai r l y c al l th e out co m e o fthe l i ti g at i o n s o m e su cce ss o n the mer i ts wi th o utc o nd uc ting a ‘l en gth y i nq uir[y] into th e q u e s t ion w he th er a parti cul arparty’ s success w as ‘ substa nti al ’ or occur re d on a ‘ centr ali ssue. ’ ” Id. ( quo tingRuc ke l s haus , 463 U
. S. at 688, n .9). Hardt did not, however, m odi fy th e s eco nd st ep in ev alu at in g a fee p et itio n . Id at 2158 n. 8. A ccord in gl y,12 N os. 10

- 1889 & 10

- 3083

The fi ve f act ors incl ud e: 2 ( 1) the degree ofthe off ending p arties’ culpabil ity or bad faith; (2) th e d eg ree of th e ab ility of th e offend ing p arties to sat is fy personall y an aw ard of att orneys’ fees ; ( 3) w hether or not an aw ard of att orney s’ fees w ould d ete r other per s ons a c t i ng un der s i m i l ar c i rc um s t anc es ; ( 4) the am ountofbe ne fi tc onfer re d on m em ber s o f the pe ns i on p lan as a w ho le; an d ( 5) the rela tiv e m e r i t s of the p arties’ p osition s. H erm an , 42 3 F. 3d at69 6 ( i nt er nalquo t at i on m ar ks an d ci t at i ons o m itt ed ). afterco ncl ud i ng tha t a party has sho w n “so m e degr ee ofsucce ss on the m er i ts” and i s thus el i gibl e f orfee s, cour ts m ust dete rm i ne wh ether fe es ar e a pp ro pri ate
. H uss , sli p op. at 27-28, 2011 W L 138 8 5 43, at * 12. To aw ard fees , “co urt[ s] m ust fi nd the non- preva i l i ng party ’ s l i ti gati on p os i ti on was notsubst anti al l y j usti fi ed. ” H uss , slip op. at28 , 20 11 W L 138 85 43 , at* 12. A l though we have u se d a five -fac to r te st to in for m th e “ su b st an tia lly j u st ifi ed” s ta nda r d, the inq ui r y f o cus es o n “ whethe r the 2 [d ]efe n d an t[’s ] litiga tio n p os itio n w as su b s ta n tia lly j u st ifi ed an d t ak eni n good f ai tho r whethe r [ i t was ] o ut to hara ss [ the pl ai nti ff ]
. ” Id. at * 13, sl i p op. at28
. W e affirm the d istri ct cou rt’s den ialof Pa kovic h’s r eque stf o r fee s an d c o st s. I n i ts i ni ti alde ci si o n de ny i ng f ees a nd c o s t s , the di s t r i c tc o ur tc o ns i de r e d P a k o vi ch a “ p re va ilin g p ar ty ,” c on c lu d ed th at th e P lan ’s o p p os iti on t o P ako vich II did n ot m ee t the st andard ofgo od f ai th, and u l ti m at el y f o und a fee a war d war r an te d. ButN os. 10

- 1889 & 10

- 3083 13 i t no ne th el es s den i ed Pa k o vi ch ’s fee c l ai m b as ed o n o ur den i alo fhe r r eque stf o r fee s o n a ppea l i n Pako vi ch I an d h er failu re to p r op er ly su b st an tia te h er cla im in P ako vich II
. I n part i cul ar, i t e xplai ned that Pako vi ch d id not p rovide receip ts, invoices, or vou ch ers to v e r ify the c ost s s he so ught. I t furtherr eas oned thatther e was no docu m entat i on s up port i ng herr equest f orfees that woul d i ndi ca te a r ea so nabl e hou rly r at e o r the a m o unt ofti m e r eas onabl y s pent on the c ase , am ong o ther th in gs . S eeStark v. P P M Am
. , Inc. , 35 4 F
. 3d 666, 674 ( 7th Cir
. 20 04) ( “The burden o fpro vi ng the m ar ke t ra te i s o n the a p p li cant. ”)
. I t wrot e that Pak ovi ch subm i tte d m er el y a n i nv oi ce s how i ng the bi l l i ng char ges fro m her co uns ela nd som eon e r efer r ed to a s “S GS , ” whom the dist ri ct c ourtco uld noti dentify. The dis tr i ct c ourtwas unw i l l i ng to specul ate o n w hetherthe fee s and cost s we r e r e a s o n a b l e , a n d th u s d e n i e d P a k o v i c h ’ s c l a i m. Pako vi ch then m ove d fo r re consi de rati on under Rule 60(b) , co nt en d ing that s he had subst anti ate d her cl ai m i n the f or m o fan affi davi t refl ecting that the part i es agreed that her cou ns e l’ s r a te of $300 and her p aralegal’s ra te of $9 0 w er e re as on ab le. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtag ain den i ed Pa k o vi ch ’ s cl ai m , thi s ti m e ex pl aini ngtha t sh e had atta ched the a ffi davi t a s a n exhibi t t o her m oti on f o r s um m ar y j udg m en t i ns te ad o fhe r fee pe ti ti o n ( sh e fi l ed both docum ents on the sa m e day) , and t h at her peti ti on d id not r eferthe cour t t o the a ffi davi t fi l ed w i th her m oti on f or sum m ar y j ud gm ent. I t further noted th at, a mon go the r thing s , the a ffi da v i tp ur po r t e d t o i nc l ud e an ex hibit refl ectin g th e tim e an d ex p en se s Pakov ich’s c o un s e l de v o t e d t o the l i t i g a t i o n tha twa s n o ta t tached14 N os. 10

- 1889 & 10

- 3083

That sai d, w e re cognize that e xer ci si ng equitable j uris dic- 3 ti on in c ase s li ke Pakov ic h’ s w ould b e unhelpful i fs im il ar pl ai nt i ff s c ou ld notm ee tthe s t anda rd i n H ar dt

. W e be l i e ve thata plan parti ci pant o r b en efic iar y achie ves “s om e degree ofs ucces s on the m eri ts,” and is thus el igible f or at torney fees un d er § 5 02 (g), w he re she , as he re, seek s to r eco v er b en efits on a deem ed d enial the ory and th e p lan pays the ent ir e am ou nt re qu ested sho rtly after the p lain tiff fil es suit. to th e p et itio n, an d th at h er p et it i o n cit ed to m u ltip le ex hibi ts tha t i te m i ze d he r c o uns el ’ s ti m e, b utthat o ne w as not att ached. Pako vi ch d oes notchal l enge these fin d in gs on ap p ea l. T hus, we need not deter m i ne wh etherPako vi ch achi eve d “som e degr ee ofsuccess on the m er i ts” under Hardt or w h et h er th e P lan ’s c on d u c t w as “ s u b s t an tia lly j usti fi ed. ” W e m ust deci de so l el y whether the dist ri ct

3 cour t abused i ts disc re ti on bydenyi ng Pak ovi ch’s fee c l a i m b a s e d o n o u r d e n i a l o f fe e s i n P akovi ch Iand her i na dequa te fi l i ng s i n P ako vich II
. Pa k ovich c i te s no a utho r i tyde m o ns tr at i ngtha t th e dist ri ct c ourtabuse d i ts disc re ti on. Fi rs t, sh e r equests th a tw e g r a n tth e fe e s fr o m P a k o vich I that w e hav e al re ady deni ed , c onte nd i ng tha t we shoul d ree val uate o urde ci si o n i n P ako vich I i n l i ght of the Pl an’ s co nd uct i n P ako vich II
. W e di sa g r ee. On r eh ea r i ngi n Pakovi ch I , w e e x p lain ed th at “a ss u m in g . . . B ro ad sp ire Ser vic es is the ‘ l o s e r, ’ i t c a nn o t b e s a i d tha t i t s po s i t i o n o n appeal was s i m pl y t o ha r as s Pa k o vi ch, wheni t w as defen di ng th e d istri ct cou rt’s app roach to a novel i s su e in this Cir-N os. 10

- 1889 & 10

- 3083 15 cui t. ” P ako vich v. Broa dspire Servs. , Inc. , 2 0 0 8 U
. S
. App
. LE XI S 17597, at * 2 ( 7th Ci r. A ug. 14 , 20 08)
. The f act that the Pl an eng age d i n m or e questionabl e co nd uct after Pakovi ch I

, w hich f orm ed the ba sis of P ako v ich II , does not al te r o urc o nc l us i o n tha t i ts c o nduc t i n Pakovi ch Iwas su b st an tia lly j u s t i f ied

. P ako vich IIinv olv es a b en efit cla im base d on a d ee m ed-deni altheo ry, a theo rynotpursued i n Pakovi ch I
. Further, to the extent Pako vich a sks us t o o ve r tu r n c as e l aw that di r ec ts c o ur ts t o de te r m i ne w h et h er t h e los in g p ar ty ’s p os itio n w as “s u b st an tia lly j usti fi ed, ” s e e, e . g. , H uss , sl i p op. at28 , 20 11 W L 13885 43, at *12 , sh e p ro v i d e s n o c om p ellin g re as on for d oin g s o. See M ers v. M a rriott In t’l G rou p A ccid enta l D eath & D is m em berm e ntPla n , 1 4 4 F
. 3 d 1 0 1 4 , 1 0 2 3 n . 5 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) ( “ We re quir e co m pel l i ng r eas ons to ove rturn Ci rcuit prec ed en t.”)
. Pa k o vi ch ’ s ar g um en ts f o r fee s i nc ur r ed i n P ako vich II ar e si m i l ar l y unpe r su as i ve . F i r st, s he c o nc ede s th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t ha d di sc r et i o n t o de ny he r fee c l ai m , b ut poi nts o ut thatthe P lan di d not chal l enge the t i m e her cou ns el cl aim s to hav e d evote d to the cas e, he r coun sel’s ho ur l y r at e, o r the c o st s so ug ht, a nd a r g ue s th at th e dist ri ct c ourtthus abused i ts disc re ti on i n denyi ng fees . Pa kovich m isun d erstan d s the l aw . Th e d istri ct cou rt was no t o bl i g ed to awar d fee s m er el y be cause the Pl an di d not s peci fi cal ly op p ose tho se el em ents of Pako vi ch’s fee c lai m , es peci al l y when Pakovi ch’s fee petition nowh er e a rgued that a $3 00 ra te w as re aso nabl e; i t m er el y us ed th atfi g ur e t o c al cul at e i ts fee s i n o ne of the ex hibits attac he d to i ts p etition. I t w a s Pakov ich’s burden to pre sent evi dence ofa re aso nabl e r ate , see Sta rk16 N os. 10

- 1889 & 10

- 3083

v . P P M A m . , Inc. , 3 5 4 F
. 3 d 6 6 6 , 6 74 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) , a m o ng o the r thing s , a nd the di s t r i c tc o ur th a d n o o b l i gat i on to sco ur Pak ovi ch’s fili ngs l oo ki ng f orev i dence that m i ght ha ve sat i sfi ed that burden. Fur th er, we disa gr ee w i th Pak ovi ch’s co ntenti on that the Pl an co nceded in i ts op p os i t i o n t o h er fee p et itio n th at $3 00 w as a re as on ab le ho ur l y r at e. I t m erel y c al cul at ed f o r the s ak e o fa r g um en t the fees to wh i ch i t be l i eve d Pakovi ch shoul d be e nti tl ed i f the c o ur t us e d the r a t e Pa k o v i c h r e qu e s t e d; i t did not con ced e t h a t th e rate w as reason able. Finally, Pakov ich’s ar gum ent that he r fai l ure to adequatel y s ubstanti ate her fee re quest wa s in advert ent a nd excusab l e under Rul e 60 ( b) i s unhelp ful

. W i th o utmor e, we fi nd no ab us e o fdi sc r et i o n.

I I I . Concl usio n For the for ego i ng r eas ons, we V ACATE the di s t ri ct cour t’ s deci si on gra nti ng sum m ar y j ud gm ent fo r Pako vi ch o n he r b e ne fi t s c l a i m, a nd A FFIRM i ts denia l o fherfee re quest.

7- 22- 11