Case Name: Susan Rene JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; Merck & Co., LTD Plan for NonUnion Employees; Merck & Co., Inc., Administrator for Merck & Co., Inc. LTD Plan for Non Union Employees, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-24
Citations: 555 F. App'x 733
Docket Number: No. 12-15655
Parties: Susan Rene JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; Merck & Co., LTD Plan for NonUnion Employees; Merck & Co., Inc., Administrator for Merck & Co., Inc. LTD Plan for Non Union Employees, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 555
Pages: 733–734

Head Matter:
Susan Rene JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; Merck & Co., LTD Plan for NonUnion Employees; Merck & Co., Inc., Administrator for Merck & Co., Inc. LTD Plan for Non Union Employees, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-15655.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 11, 2014.
Filed Feb. 24, 2014.
Robert B. Nichols, Law Office of Robert Nichols, Genoa, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Erin Ann Cornell, Rebecca Ann Hull, Sedgwick LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: REINHARDT and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS, District Judge.
The Honorable William K. Sessions III, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jones appeals the district court's award of attorney's fees in an action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The district court awarded Jones a total of $191,290.50 in attorney's fees. Jones argues that the district court abused its discretion in calculating the appropriate hourly rate for Jones's attorney, in reducing the number of hours to be awarded, and in failing to award attorney's fees for a previous appeal to this court.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that $450 an hour was an 'appropriate rate for Jones's attorney. Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 946-47 (9th Cir.2007). Neither did the district court abuse its discretion in reducing the number of hours submitted by Jones to those which were "reasonably expended." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983).
The district court erred, however, in failing to award Jones fees for the portion of her previous appeal to this court in which we remanded to allow Jones to file a fee motion before the district court. See Jones v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 456 Fed.Appx. 647 (9th Cir.2011). Accordingly, we remand to the district court for a determination of the appropriate amount of fees to be awarded on that portion of the previous appeal. See Se. Legal Def. Grp. v. Adams, 657 F.2d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir.1981).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
Each party shall bear its own costs.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.