Opinion ID: 792485
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Interest, Double Interest, and Audit Costs

Text: 54 The district court allowed interest, double interest, and audit costs to continue to accrue after the attorneys' fees awarded to Moriarty were cut off. We affirm the district court's decision on this issue. 55 The exact statutory language at issue states: 56 (g) Attorney's fees and costs; awards in actions involving delinquent contributions . . . 57 (2) In any action under this subchapter by a fiduciary for or on behalf of a plan to enforce section 1145 of this title in which a judgment in favor of the plan is awarded, the court shall award the plan — 58 (A) the unpaid contributions, 59 (B) interest on the unpaid contributions, 60 (C) an amount equal to the greater of — 61 (i) interest on the unpaid contributions, or 62 (ii) liquidated damages provided for under the plan in an amount not in excess of 20 percent (or such higher percentage as may be permitted under Federal or State law) of the amount determined by the court under subparagraph (A), 63 (D) reasonable attorney's fees and costs of the action, to be paid by the defendant, and 64 (E) such other legal or equitable relief as the court deems appropriate. 65 29 U.S.C.A. § 1132(g)(2).
66 Svec is required to pay interest and double interest on the delinquent contributions. See 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1132(g)(2)(B), (C). Svec's arguments against payment rely upon a strained statutory interpretation based on Public Citizen v. United States Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 454, 109 S.Ct. 2558, 105 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989). In Public Citizen, the Supreme Court found that words of general meaning sometimes do not represent the legislature's true intent. Id. Svec, however, presents no evidence that the legislature did not mean what it said when it mandated interest and double interest on unpaid contributions. 67 Svec also claims that he should not be forced to pay the interest costs because Moriarty prolonged this litigation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Moriarty did not prolong this litigation. 68 While attorneys' fees and costs must be reasonable, there is no such qualifier placed upon the award of interest and double interest. See 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1132(g)(2). The reasonable requirement in the context of fees and costs creates a latitude for the district court that does not exist in the awarding of interest. The statutory language has clear implications in this case. In an action involving delinquent contributions . . . the court shall award the plan . . . interest on the unpaid contributions, [and] an amount equal to the greater of interest on the unpaid contributions, or liquidated damages[.] 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1132(g)(2)(B), (C). 69 We affirm the judgment of the district court requiring Svec to pay Moriarty interest and double interest totaling $51,628.10 on the unpaid contributions.
70 Svec also claims that the audit costs were excessive. Of the $10,557.02 in audit costs, Svec claims $3,868.75 should not be paid because it was plaintiff's attorney's negligence in prolonging the litigation that resulted in additional audit costs. Svec presents no evidence that the district court abused its discretion by awarding these costs. Additionally, there was no factual finding by the district court to support Svec's claim that Moriarty should be denied fees or costs because of alleged negligence. The district court correctly found that audit costs were part of the relief due to plaintiff under 29 U.S.C.A. § 1132(g)(2)(E). Because an award of audit costs to the prevailing party is consistent with the policy of encouraging full and fair contributions, we hold that audit costs are recoverable under subsection (E). Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. A-C Co., 859 F.2d 1336, 1343 (9th Cir.1988). We affirm the district court's finding that Svec must pay Moriarty $10,557.02 in audit costs.
71 The total costs at issue in this case are $281. Svec makes no argument that this assessment was improper. Nonetheless, Svec alleges in an argument heading that The District Court Erred in Awarding Plaintiff . . . Costs[.] The Court finds no basis to challenge the assessment of costs and affirms the holding of the district court. 72