Opinion ID: 2816601
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the relative merits of the

Text: parties’ position[s]. 719 F.2d at 673. The District Court considered the Ursic factors in the alternative, and found that although the second and third factors—ability to pay and deterrent effect— weighed in Jeffrey’s favor, the first, fourth, and fifth factors—culpability, benefit conferred on Plan members other than Jeffrey, and the relative merits of the parties’ positions— weighed against an award of fees. On the whole, the Court found that an award of fees was not appropriate. We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by declining to award fees. First, the culpability of the defendants remains speculative. Second, the benefit of Jeffrey’s lawsuit to other Plan participants has been of a limited and non-monetary nature—the Plan itself remains 20 fully funded under federal benchmarks. And third, for the reasons already stated at great length both here and in the District Court, Jeffrey’s legal efforts to date, which have involved several years of litigation and four iterations of the complaint, were predicated in large part upon a flawed theory of constitutional standing. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to compel the defendants to finance Jeffrey’s lawsuit. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s denial of attorneys’ fees and costs to Jeffrey under ERISA § 502(g)(1).