Opinion ID: 3040025
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A “proportional” fee award

Text: First, the Appellants argue that the District Court erred by awarding Hahnemann approximately $136,000 in attorney’s fees when the summary judgment award was only approximately $100,000. They assert that an attorney’s fees award in an ERISA case such as this should be approximately one-third of the damage award. We reject this theory. Recently, this Court joined several other Courts in rejecting a proportionality rule for attorney’s fees awarded under ERISA. See United Auto. Workers, 501 F.3d at 295 (citing Bldg. Serv. Local 47 v. Grandview Raceway, 46 F.3d 1392, 1401 (6th Cir. 1995); Operating Eng’rs Pension Trusts v. B & E Backhoe, Inc., 911 F.2d 1347, 1355 (9th Cir. 1990); Bd. of Trs. of the Hotel & Rest. Employees, Local 25 v. Madison Hotel, Inc., 43 F. Supp. 2d 8, 14 (D.D.C. 1999)). Thus, we will not disturb the fee award based on this argument.