Court Opinion

ID: 9487406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:15:50.840925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:15.173148
License: Public Domain

MANION, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur. I agree with the court that Hooper is not a prevailing party, but write separately to emphasize that Farrar v. Hobby, — U.S.-,-, 113 S.Ct. 566, 573, 121 L.Ed.2d 494 (1992) appears to have limited “prevailing party” status to parties who have obtained “‘an enforceable judgment, consent decree, or settlement giving some of the legal relief sought....’” See Zinn v. Shalala, 35 F.3d 273, 276 (7th Cir.1994) (Manion, J., dissenting) (quoting S-1 and S-2 v. State Bd. of Educ. of N.C., 21 F.3d 49, 51 (4th Cir.1994)). In any event, Hooper cannot recover attorney’s fees under ERISA because he has not demonstrated that Demco’s position was not substantially justified, or that it was taken to harass or vex the prevailing party. Opinion at 294-295.