Court Opinion

ID: 9497418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:51:16.759456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:11.552178
License: Public Domain

WILKINS, Chief Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in the majority opinion except to the extent that it affirms the attorney’s fee award. I would vacate that award and direct the district court to reconsider on remand the issue of Griggs’ entitlement to attorney’s fees.
From the beginning of this suit, the primary disputed issue has been Griggs’ entitlement to compensation for the unanticipated tax burden he incurred when he received the lump sum distribution. DuPont has steadfastly maintained that Griggs is not entitled to such compensation or to any other remedy that shifts the risk of tax loss to DuPont. When the district court awarded Griggs just such a remedy, it also awarded him attorney’s fees.
In excercising its discretion to award attorney’s fees to Griggs as a prevailing party underERISA, the district court considered five factors, including “the relative merits of the parties’ positions,” which the court ruled “unquestionably favor[ed] Griggs.” J.A. II 302, 304. In determining the amount of fees to award, the district court considered 12 factors, “the most critical” being “the amount in controversy and the results obtained.” Id. at 306 (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court concluded that “Griggs was fully successful in this litigation” and therefore “de-clinefd] to reduce Griggs’s attorney’s fee award to account for limited success in the litigation.” Id. at 307. Based on all of these factors, the district court awarded Griggs $39,878 in attorney’s fees, the full amount that Griggs had requested.
On appeal, we now hold that the district court erred in shifting the risk of tax loss to DuPont, and we therefore vacate the order granting relief and direct the district court to provide an alternative remedy. In so doing, we reverse the district court ruling on the critical issue in this case. Indeed, given an opportunity to comment on the alternative remedy that we first proposed at oral argument, Griggs stated that because it left the tax loss burden with him, it “would fail to restore [him] to the status quo ante and would place him effectively in the same position” he would be in without any relief. Griggs’ Supplemental Br. at 7. Suffice it to say that, if Griggs has succeeded in any real sense on the merits of his case after our opinion, it is to a far lesser degree than he did in the district court.
In my view, the fee award is nullified by our vacatur of the merits remedy on which the fee award was based. See Martin v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Va., Inc., 115 F.3d 1201, 1210 (4th Cir.1997) (“[W]e have often indicated that reversal of a judgment under ERISA also requires reversal of any attendant award of attorneys’ fees.”); Pedigo v. P.A.M. Transp., Inc., 98 F.3d 396, 398 (8th Cir.1996) (“[A]n order awarding attorney’s fees based on a party having prevailed in a trial court cannot survive the reversal of that party’s judgment on appeal.”). I would so hold and direct the district court to reconsider the question of Griggs’ entitlement to attorney’s fees in light of his now-reduced degree of success. See Larez v. Holcomb, 16 F.3d 1513, 1522-23 (9th Cir.1994) (holding that appellate court order of new trial on damages warranted vacatur of attorney’s fee award and reconsideration of the fee issue by the district court); Huemmer v. Mayor of Ocean City, 632 F.2d 371, 373 (4th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (holding that when district court awarded attorney’s fees to plaintiff after ruling that ordinance plaintiff challenged was unconstitutional but that the city and mayor were not liable for damages, our reversal of the damages ruling operated to vacate the fee award and *456allow plaintiff to reapply for fees once the amount of damages had been determined). By deciding the fee award issue ourselves, we are effectively usurping the authority of the district court to decide the issue in the first instance. See Quesinberry v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 987 F.2d 1017, 1028 (4th Cir.1993) (en banc) (“ERISA places the determination of whether attorneys’ fees should be awarded in an ERISA action completely within the discretion of the district court.”); Bague v. City of Burlington, 976 F.2d 801, 804 (2d Cir.1991) (holding that “when questions are presented such as the amount of recovery [and] the extent to which a plaintiff is a prevailing party, ... determination of a reasonable attorney’s fee under the fee-shifting statutes should normally be decided by the district court in the first instance”).
The majority apparently concludes that DuPont waived any right it had to vacatur of the attorney’s fee award because its only specific argument challenging the fee award was that the remedy provided by the district court did not entitle Griggs to prevailing party status. See ante, at 454 (“As to the award of attorney’s fees and costs, DuPont challenges only Griggs’s status as a prevailing party. DuPont does not argue that even as a prevailing party, Griggs is not entitled to an award of fees, nor does DuPont challenge the amount of attorney’s fees awarded.” (citations omitted)). But this conclusion overlooks that DuPont is entitled to vacatur of the fee award because of its successful merits argument on appeal; its argument specifically challenging the fee award based on the judgment of the district court is thus irrelevant. See Smiddy v. Varney, 665 F.2d 261, 268 (9th Cir.1981) (rejecting all of defendants-appellants’ arguments regarding attorney’s fee award but ordering that “if damages are substantially reduced on remand the [district] court should reconsider the amount of the attorney’s fees award”).*
In essence, the majority penalizes DuPont for not challenging the ruling that our new remedy could support the fee award — even though no court had ever made that ruling at the time DuPont filed its briefs. Even if DuPont had some duty to object in anticipation of our reasonably foreseeable rulings, I still would find no waiver. For the reasons I have discussed, DuPont could not have been expected to *457predict that despite reversing the district court on the critical issue in this case and vacating the order on which the fee award was based, we would nonetheless leave the fee award intact.
For all the foregoing reasons, I would vacate the attorney’s fee award and direct the district court to revisit the fee issue on remand.

 In any event, Griggs specifically argued in his initial brief that if we vacate the merits relief awarded by the district court, we must also vacate the fee award. See Br. for Appellant at 38 (asserting that “if this Court agrees that the relief ordered by the district court violates applicable principles of limitation on appropriate equitable relief under ERISA, ... and accordingly reverses leaving Griggs with no remedy, then Griggs will obviously not be a prevailing party and would not be entitled to his fees or costs,” and quoting Martin, 115 F.3d at 1210, for the proposition that "reversal of a judgment under ERISA also requires reversal of any attendant award of attorneys’ fees” (internal quotation marks omitted)). While this argument does not address the specific scenario in which this court vacates the district court remedy and awards substitute relief, DuPont certainly cannot be blamed for failing to anticipate that particular scenario in preparing its initial brief.
After oral argument, DuPont, noting the alternative remedy that we had proposed during oral argument, moved successfully for leave to file a supplemental brief addressing "whether partial rescission is an available and otherwise appropriate equitable remedy.” Appellant's Mot. for Leave to File Supplemental Br„ at 2. The majority apparently rests its waiver holding, at least in part, on DuPont’s failure to address the attorney's fee issue in that brief. See ante, at 454 n. 8. However, because DuPont was not granted leave to address the additional issue of what legal effect our granting partial rescission would have on the attorney’s fee award, DuPont was not authorized to address that issue. Consequently, it should not be penalized for not doing so.