2004 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
4-23-2004 

# S kr etvedt v . EI DuP on t de N e mours P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-2805

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" S kr e t ve dt v

. EI DuP on t de N e mour s " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 780. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/780* Ho nora ble M yron H . Brigh t, Unite d Sta tes C ourt o f A ppea ls for th e Eig hth

Circuit , si tti ng by des ignati on. NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

__________ No. 03-2805

__________ ORRIN T. SKRETVEDT, Appellant

v. EI DUPONT DE NEMO URS, a De la ware corpor at ion ; PENSI ON RET PLAN; HOSPI TAL AND MEDICAL- SURGICAL P LAN; DENTAL ASSI STANCE PL AN ; NO NC ON TR IBU TO RY GR OU P L IFE INS UR AN CE PL AN ; CONTRI BUTORY GRO UP LI FE I NSURANCE PLAN; TOTAL AND PERMANENT DIS ABI LI TY I NCOME PLAN ; S AV INV P LAN; TAX REF ORM ACT ST OCK OW NE RS HI P P LA N; S HO RT TE RM DI SA BIL ITY PL AN
.

__________ On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt

for the D istrict of Delaw are Civil Action No. 98-cv- 00061 Magistrate Judge: Honorabl e Mary P. Thy nge

__________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit L. A.R. 34.1( a)

April 20, 2004

___________ Before: SCIRI CA, GARTH, an d BRIGHT, * Circu it Judges

( Fil ed: April23, 2004)

__________ OPI NION-2- __________ Ga rth, Circu it Judge : Orrin Skretvedt appeal s from a District Court Order ( i) gr anting hi s motion for attor ney’s fee s an d co sts (a lbeit red ucin g hi s ap plica tion fro m $ 226 ,000 to $ 182 ,163 .45) , and (ii) denying his m otion to strike a brief su bmitted by E.I. Du Pont D e Nem ours (“ DuPon t” ). For

th e r eas ons th atfol lo w, we wil l a ffirm. I. Because we write s olely for the be nefit

of the parties , we recount the fact s and the pro ced ura l histo ry of th e ca se o nly as th ey are relev ant to the f ollo win g di scu ssio n. Skre tvedt su ed D uPo nt, his fo rmer emp loyer, seek ing tw o fo rms o f long -term d isability ben efits und er th e E mp loyee Re tirem ent I nco me Sec urity A ct (“E RIS A” ), 29 U.S .C. § 1001 et seq. The Distric t Cou rt ruled in Du Pon t’s fav or on sum mary jud gm ent, bu t a thre e-ju dge pan el of this C our t rev erse d an d va cate d th at ru ling on a ppe al. See Skretvedt v. E .I. D uP ont de N em our s & C o., 268 F.3d 167, 184 ( 3d Cir. 2001) . The panel f ound that the evide nce c learly dem onstra ted tha t Skre tvedt w as eligib le for “ Incap ability Benefits ” and it

remanded for a new dete rminati on by DuPont on Skretvedt’s applic ation for “T otal a nd P erm ane nt D isab ility Inco me Pla n” b ene fits (“ T& P B ene fits” ). See id. at 170
. The p anel noted that Skretved t had also requ ested attorney’s fees un der ER ISA’s discretionary fee-shifting pro vision. Rathe r than decide that matter on ap peal, how ever,1 A December 17, 1999 entry in the Dis tri ct Court’ s docket s uggests t he parti es consented to the exer cise of j urisdi ction by a magistr ate j udge. -3- the panelremanded to t he District Court

with ins tructions that Skretvedt’s request be considered under thefive-fa ctor analy sis s et fort h in McPherson v. Employees’ Pens ion Pla n of Am . Re Insu ran ce C o., 33 F .3d 2 53, 2 54 ( 3d C ir. 19 94)
. See Skre tvedt, 268 F.3d at 185 n. 10. On remand, DuPont awarded Skretvedt T&P Benefits. That favorabl e ruli ng prompted Skretvedt to f ile a motion seeki ng short- term benefi ts becaus e DuPont purport edlyawards such benefi ts i n cases where i t awards l ong-term benefits . When the Magistrate Judge 1 den ied h is m otio n, S kre tved t mo ved for reco nsid erati on. M eanw hile, Sk retved t renew ed his requ est for attorne y’s fees b y filing a m otion in the D istrict Co urt o n S epte mb er 3 , 200 2 se ekin g atto rne y’s fee s an d co sts fr om Du Po nt. Skretvedt

file d that motion while hi s motion for reconsi derati on was stil l pending. Under the lo cal c our t rule s, D uP ont had unt il Se ptem ber 13, 2 002 to fil e its a nsw erin g br ief. See D. Del. LR. 7. 1.2 (s tati ng that an answering brief “sha ll be s erved and fi led no later t han 10 d ays after se rvice a nd f iling of the op ening brief” ). Du Pon t inform ed the M agistrate Judge b y letter on Septemb er 16, 200 2 that it believed Sk retvedt’s mo tion for attorney’s fees w as prem ature in light of the the n-pend ing mo tion for recon sideration on sh ort-term ben efits and that i t wo uld sub mit a for ma l ans we ring brie f on ce th e m atter bec am e rip e. On Novem ber 12, 2002, the Magistr ate Judge de nied Skretvedt’s motion for-4-

reconsi derati on. Two weeks later , DuPont wrote a s econd letter to the Magistr ate Judge
con firm ing that i t wo uld sub mit its ans we ring brie f by D ece mb er 1 6, 20 02, w hich it did
. Skretvedt

moved to strike DuPont’s brief on the ground that it was untimelyunder the loca l rule s. The M agistrate Judge ultimatelygranted Skretvedt’s motion for att orney’s fees, altho ugh she red uce d th e req ues ted a mo unt fro m a ppr oxi ma tely $2 26,0 00 t o $1 82,1 63.4 5. In reachi ng her deci sion, the Magistr ate Judge c areful lyweighed the McPherson factors in a 26-pagewritten opinion. The Magistrate Judge denie d Skretvedt ’s moti on to st rike DuPont’s bri ef, st ating t hat “Plainti ff’s counse l provi ded no legi timate basis for striki ng defendants ’ answeri ng brief. ” Skretvedt

now appeals both a spects of the Magistrate J udge’s rul ing. We have juris dicti on t o he ar th is ap pea l pu rsua nt to 28 U .S.C . § 12 91. II. Skretvedt

firs t conte nds that

the Dist rict Court abused i ts di scretion when it de nied his moti on to st

rike DuPont’ s answering brief. This argument is without merit . A dist rict court abus es it s discretion i f its decisi on is base d on a clearlyerroneous finding of fact, an inco rrec t con clus ion of la w, o r an erra nt ap plica tion of la w to fac t. John ston v . HB O F ilm M gm t., Inc ., 265 F .3d 178, 18 3 (3d C ir. 2001). Un der the local rules, the D istrict Court had discretion to decide whether to impose a s ancti on and, i f so, what t ype of s ancti on
wa s ap pro pria te. See D. D el. LR . 1.3(a). W hile the expla nation given by the M agistrateJudg e for d enying S kretve dt’s m otion to strike D uPo nt’s brie f w as by no mea ns len gthy, it

is fair to conclude that

the Magistr ate Judge a greed with DuPont t hat therequest

for attorney’ s fees di d not become ri pe untilthere was a fi nal deci sion on Skretvedt’s motion for reco nsid erati on. Skretvedt ’s second argument on appealis that theMagistrate Judge shoul d not have reduced t

he amount of attorney ’s fees and costs . The same st andard of revi ew app lies to this r ulin g, na me ly, abu se o f dis creti on. See Silber man v. Bogle, 683 F.2d 62, 64-6 5 (3d Cir. 19 82). W e do n ot find any abu se of discre tion. T he M agistrate Judg e did an exhausti ve and comprehensi ve analy sis of all t he factor s that

we require beconsidered for an aw ard of attorne y’s fees under E RISA . We h ave review ed the M agistrate Judge’s dec is io n wi th gr eat

care an d wi llaff

irm. III. For the foregoing rea sons, t he May 9, 2003 (e ntered May 13, 2003) Order and Judgment of theUnited States Magistr ate Judge f or the Dis tri ct Court of

Delaware willbe AFFI RMED.