N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SELINA B R

YANT, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C IGNA HEALTHC AR E OF C ALIFOR

NIA, INC ., De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e , a nd SOUTHW EST C ARPENTER S HEALTH AND W ELFARE TR

UST, De fe nda

nt. No. 14-55251 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-09560-R GK-R Z M EM O R ANDUM *

SELINA B R

YANT, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. SOUTHW EST C ARPENTER S HEALTH AND W ELFARE TR

UST, No. 14-55313 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-09560-R GK-R Z 

# FIL ED MAR 21 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.De fe nda nt, a nd C IGNA HEALTHC AR E OF C ALIFOR

NIA, INC ., De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia R . Ga ry Kla usne r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 12, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FAR

R IS, C LIFTON, a

nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiff Se lina

B ry ant a p pe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s Fe brua ry 7, 2014 Judgm e nt R e ga

rding Attorney s’ Fe e s and C osts. De fe n da nts C onne c tic ut Ge ne ra l Life Insura

nc e C om pa ny (“ C G L IC ” ) and Southwe st C arpe nte rs He a lth & W e lfare Trust c ross-a

ppe a l. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm in pa rt, va c a te in pa

rt, a nd re m and. B ry ant a rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion whe n it de t e rm ine d that she c ould not re c ove r a ttorne y s’ fe e s inc urre d a fte r M a rc h 21, 2011, the

date that C GLIC a c c e pte d re sponsibility for pa y ing he r c l a im . The distric t c o urt ba se d its de c i sion on Mc

Elw ainev . US W

e st, Inc
. , 176 F.3d 1167, 1174 (9th C ir. 1999), 2whe re this c o urt he l d tha t a n ER ISA c la im ant “ should re c ove r fe e s only for work up until the

tim e she le arne d c onc lusive ly tha t US W e st would pa

y he r c la im in full.” The c ritic a l fa c t, howe v e r, wa s tha t onc e the pla i ntiff ha d a c hie ve d c e rta inty re ga rding he r c la im , “ nothing re m a ine d to be a c hie v e d by furthe r litiga

tion[,] ” and the c ourt wa s not pe rsua de d tha t the furthe r a c tions ta

k e n by c ounse l we re

“ ne c e ssa ry or a ppropria te .” Id. Entitle m e nt to a

ttorne y s’ fe e s is a

c ritic a l issue in ERISA a c tions, a nd litiga tion m ay be ne c e ssa

ry to e sta blish tha t e n title m e nt. Se e Smith v
. C MTA-IAM Pe nsion Trust , 746 F.2d 587, 590 (9th C ir. 1984) (“ ‘ Not to a w ard c ounse l fe e s in c a se s suc h a s this would be ta nta m o unt to re pe a ling theAc t itse lf by frustrating its ba sic purpose .’ ” (quoting Hall v . C ole , 412 U.S. 1, 13 (1973))). Here , B ry ant’ s e ntitle m e nt to a

ttorne y s ’ fe e s de pe nde d

on e sta b lishing tha

t C GLIC re c e ive d a c la im in 2007. Otherwise she would not ha ve be e n a ble to show tha

t she a c hie ve d

“ som e suc c e s s on the m e rits.” Hardt v . Re lianc e Standard Life Ins. C o. , 560 U.S. 242, 255 (2010). Throughout the

life -spa n of this c a s e and inc luding its brie fing to this pa ne l, C GLIC re fuse d to a c knowle dge tha t it re c e ive d a

c la im in 2007. C GLIC wa s we ll within its rights to do so, but tha t a c tion forc e d B ry ant to c onduc t a d ditiona l disc ove ry to e sta blish he r e ntitle m e nt to fe e s. As the prior Ninth C irc uit pa ne l 3re c o gniz e d, “ i f C GLIC re c e ive d a c l a im from B ry a n t prior to he r initia

tion of this litiga tion but pai d up only unde r the c loud of litiga tion, the n B ry ant like ly

‘ s usta ine d som e de gre e of suc c e ss’ on the m e rits.” On re m and, the distric t c ourt pla c e d dispositive

we ight on fa c ts a

nd a rgum e nts tha

t we re the re sult of B ry ant’ s post-M arc h 21, 2011 disc o ve ry . In the se c irc um sta

n c e s, the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re t ion whe n it de nie d a ttorne y s’ fe e s c orre sponding to the work tha t wa s unde rtake n to e nsure B ry ant’ s e ntitle m e nt to those

fe e s. Ac c ordingly , we va c a te the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt in pa rt a nd re m a nd. On re m and, B ry ant m ust diffe re ntia

t e be twe e n the post-M arc h 21, 2011 fe e s tha

t she inc urre d to e sta

blish tha t C GLIC ha d re c e ive d a

c la im in 2007, a nd the post-M arc h 21, 2011 fe e s tha t she inc urre d pursuing the the ory tha t C GLIC should ha

ve pa id he r dire c tly , so tha t the distric t c ourt c an fa shion a n a ppropria te award. Only

the post-M arc h 21, 2011 fe e s tha t she inc urre d to e sta blish tha t C GLIC ha d

re c e ive d a c la im

in 2007 we re “ ne c e ssa

ry or a ppropria te .” Mc Elw aine , 176 F.3d a

t 1174. In a ddition, the

distric t c ourt sha ll e xc lude the c osts inc urre d during both of B ry ant’ s a ppe a ls from

its c osts a

ward. W e a ffirm

the re m a inde r of the distric t c ourt’ s unde rly ing orde rs re ga rding a ttorne y s’ fe e s. First, thedistric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it re fuse d to a w ard attorne y s ’ fe e s tha

t B ry ant inc urre d pursuing the the o ry tha t C GLIC 4should ha

ve pa id he r dire c tly . Tha

t the ory did not c ontribute to the suc c e s s tha t B ry ant a c hie ve d. The distric t c ourt a l so did not a buse its disc re tion in re duc ing the fe e award for B ry a nt’ s first a

ppe a l. The c ourt prope rly c o nc lude d tha

t re a sona bly e xpe rie nc e d c ounse l w o uld not re quire m ore tha n 120 hours of pre

p a ration give n that the issue s pre se nte d we re not c om ple x a nd tha t m any of the hours e xpe n de d we re unre a sona

ble . For e xam

ple , spe nding 44.4 hours to pre pa re for a 15 m inute ora l argum e nt de fie s logic , a s doe s the 15.7 hours tha t c ounse l spe nt “p re pa

ring to file an a p pe a l.” Having a

rrive d at a

re a sona ble figure of 120 hours, the distric t c ourt did not a

buse its disc re t ion by

ha lving tha

t figure to e xc ise the portion of the a ppe a l tha t wa s de dic a te d to the the ory tha t C GLIC should ha

ve pa id B ry ant dire c tly . Like wise , the distric t c o urt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it re duc e d the a ttorne y s’ fe e s tha

t B ry ant’ s a ttorne y s inc urre d in pre p aring he r m otion for a ttorne y s’ fe e s a

nd in re sponding to the

c o urt’ s re q

ue st for a dditiona l inform a tion. The fe e s re que ste d

we re unre a s ona

ble in light of the work re quire d. W ith re spe c t to the De fe nda nts’ c ross-a

ppe a l, the distric t c o urt prope rly de te rm i ne d tha

t the Humme ll fa c tors we i ghe d a ga inst a fe e award for the de fe nse . Se e Humme ll v . S.E. Ry

k off &C o. , 634 F.2d 446, 453 (9th C ir. 1980). The only 5fa c t or favoring a fe e award wa s B ry ant’ s c ounse ls’ a bility to pa y , a nd none of the substa ntive fa c t ors sugge ste d tha t a fe e aw ard would be a

ppropria t e . Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts on a

ppe a l. AFFIRM E D IN PART ; V ACAT E D AND RE M ANDE D IN PART .

6