You already know that in ERISA cases a court may, in its discretion, award attorney fees if a party achieved “some degree of success on the merits.”
Is the mere filing of a lawsuit, before Plaintiff’s ERISA-governed disability benefit claim is granted, sufficient to win an award attorney fees? NO.
Here’s the case of Koloff v. MetLife Ins. Co, 2014 WL 3420990 (E. D. Cal. July 14, 2014) [PDF].
FACTS: Koloff brought suit seeking disability benefits under an ERISA-governed plan. The Court dismissed the case (without prejudice) because Koloff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. On December 5, 2013, MetLife informed Plaintiff’s counsel it was sending payment on benefits and asked for information to the net amounts, because of the offset for Social Security benefits. On December 17, 2013, Koloff brought a second lawsuit seeking disability benefits. On December 20, 2013, MetLife sent Koloff the letter approving her disability claim.
Koloff then moved for attorney fees, contending she achieved “some success on the merits.”
DISTRICT COURT HELD: Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees Denied.
- The Plaintiff’s attorney’s time records strongly suggest that “he knew of MetLife’s intention to approve the claim prior to the filing of the complaint on December 17, 2013….” The administrative record corroborates this, noting the December 5, 2013 conversation in which MetLife advised that it was “getting a check out.” Op. at 7.
- “[T]he Court finds MetLife made the decision to approve plaintiff’s long term disability benefits by December 5, 2013 and, more importantly, made clear to plaintiff’s counsel that the only thing to do was determine the net amount to be paid which would occur once counsel provided MetLife the SSDI and EDD [offset] figures.” Op. at 8.
- “Because there was no dispute as to the merits of the action before the complaint was filed, Plaintiff has shown no “injury in fact.” Op. at 8-9.
- Under ERISA, “fees and costs may be awarded to any party ‘who has achieved some degree of success on the merits.’” A claimant “does not satisfy that requirement by achieving ‘trivial success on the merits’ or a ‘purely procedural victory[.]’” Op. at 10.
- Plaintiff’s counsel should not get attorney fees in her first lawsuit, which was dismissed without prejudice. “[W]hen an individual fails to exhaust administrative remedies, ‘the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice.’” The dismissal here was not analogous to a remand. Op. at 10.
- “[F]ees expended during administrative processes are not recoverable.” Op. at 12, Fn. 13
- “T]he Ninth Circuit has not yet determined whether the catalyst theory [for seeking attorney fees] is viable in an ERISA action in light of Buckhannon[.]” Op. at 12.
- [T]he facts do not demonstrate that the suit was [a catalyst] or linked to the decision to approve plaintiff’s benefits….Plaintiff’s counsel was informed that benefits would be paid before the litigation was initiated.” Op. at 13-14.