Opinion ID: 715734
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Attorneys' Fees And Prejudgment Interest.

Text: 22 In January 1995, the district court denied Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and prejudgment interest. 2 Aplt.App. 10554. We review the district court's decision whether or not to award attorney's fees and prejudgment interest for an abuse of discretion, see Moothart, 21 F.3d at 1507, and will reverse only upon reaching a definite conviction that the court, upon weighing relevant factors, clearly erred in its judgment, Gordon v. United States Steel Corp., 724 F.2d 106, 108 (10th Cir.1983). 23 ERISA provides that in any action brought by an ERISA plan participant the court in its discretion may allow a reasonable attorney's fee and costs of action to either party. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1). In Gordon, this court specified five nonexclusive factors to guide the district court's decision in awarding fees and costs under § 1132(g)(1). 724 F.2d at 109. The district court in this case carefully considered and weighed each of the five Gordon factors, 2 Aplt.App. 10551-53, concluding that only the second factor, the ability of the Defendants to pay, weighed in favor of granting fees and costs, id. at 10553. While we might have reached a different conclusion regarding attorney's fees and prejudgment interest, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiff attorney's fees and prejudgment interest. 24 For the foregoing reasons, the judgments in Nos. 95-4030 and 95-4033 are AFFIRMED.