Board of Trustees of the U.A. Local Nos. 343 and 355 Defined Contribution Plan…
Board of Trustees of the U.A. Local Nos. 343 and 355 Defined Contribution Plan, et al. v. James Breneman
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:25-cv-03015
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Board of Trustees v. Breneman, Judge Beeler ordered plaintiffs to provide more information before deciding their attorney-fee request.
The plaintiffs and their attorneys must provide additional information supporting the requested hourly rates and describing their contacts with James Breneman or his counsel; the order does not impose a stated submission requirement on Breneman.
What happened
In Board of Trustees of the U.A. Local Nos. 343 and 355 Defined Contribution Plan, et al. v. James Breneman, the plaintiffs sought attorney’s fees in connection with a default-judgment motion. Their filing described hourly rates ranging from $400 to $850 for attorneys and a $258 rate for paralegals.
The court said the plaintiffs had not provided enough support for those rates because their cited cases involved more complex ERISA disputes rather than similar fringe-benefit contribution cases. The court also requested more information about the plaintiffs’ contacts with the defendant or the defendant’s counsel.
Judge Beeler ordered the plaintiffs to submit an update with the requested information by November 10, 2025. The order did not decide the amount of attorney’s fees.
The detailed version
- Board of Trustees of the U.A. Local Nos. 343 and 355 Defined Contribution Plan… · No. 3:25-cv-03015
- Laurel Beeler
- Nov. 4, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs sought attorney’s fees in connection with a motion for default judgment against James Breneman. The opinion states that an award of reasonable attorney’s fees is mandatory under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2), and that courts generally calculate fees using the lodestar method: the reasonable hours worked multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.
The plaintiffs’ declaration listed hourly rates of $850 for Patricia McCormick, $750 for Katherine McDonough, $600 for Jessica Alvarez, and $400 for Darelda Medina. It listed a $258 hourly rate for paralegals Rochelle Carter, Jocelyn Pen, and Lorena Aleman. The plaintiffs supported the rates mainly with decisions involving more complex ERISA litigation.
Hourly-rate information
The court explained that the relevant comparison is the prevailing rate in the Northern District of California for similar work performed by lawyers with comparable skill, experience, and reputation. The court noted that recent similar ERISA fringe-benefit cases awarded attorney rates of approximately $200 to $325 and paralegal rates of approximately $125 to $190. It also discussed one recent fringe-benefit case that awarded higher rates but said that decision did not expressly address whether the work was sufficiently similar.
Because the plaintiffs had the burden to provide satisfactory evidence that their requested rates were reasonable, the court directed them to submit additional support. The court identified examples such as a supplemental declaration from another attorney or citations to cases involving similar work.
Contact with the defendant
The plaintiffs also stated that they had conferred with the defaulting defendant’s counsel. Because the matter involved a default-judgment motion, the court requested more information about the plaintiffs’ contacts with the defendant or counsel.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs to provide the requested information by November 10, 2025. It did not decide the requested fee amount in this order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.