Macalou v. First Unum Life Insurance Company

Background

Anticia Macalou brought an action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) against First Unum Life Insurance Company, which administers a group long-term disability insurance policy for Macalou’s former employer. The court previously ruled for Macalou on a stipulated record and entered final judgment on January 6, 2025. The judgment for disability benefits through December 13, 2024, had been satisfied. The court also awarded statutory attorneys’ fees and expenses and prejudgment interest. The opinion states that the back benefits, fees, expenses, and interest totaled more than $1.3 million, less 30% attorneys’ fees, to Macalou.

Macalou was proceeding without a lawyer in this fee dispute. She argued principally that her lawyers’ fees were excessive and unlawful. The retainer agreement provided that the law firm would receive 30% of her recovery as a contingency fee. The law firm was receiving Macalou’s monthly benefits of $24,083.37 directly from First Unum, deducting 30% in fees, and sending Macalou a net monthly benefit of $16,858.36.

Requests before the court

Macalou sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to stop the fee deductions and what she described as improper handling of case-related funds held in an Interest on Lawyers Account trust account. She also requested additional relief, including a complete accounting of fees collected.

The court stated that it could potentially exercise ancillary jurisdiction—the additional authority to decide a related dispute after or alongside the main case—over the fee dispute. The court considered its responsibility to protect lawyers who are officers of the court and the convenience of litigating in that court. But it concluded that its familiarity with the ERISA case did not extend to the contractual arrangements underlying the fee dispute. Deciding the dispute would therefore require deciding entirely new claims and would not promote judicial efficiency.

Macalou’s October 9, 2025 motion also sought, as alternative relief, an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The opinion states that the proposed deadline had expired on September 26, 2025. Macalou separately filed a motion to seal on October 10, 2025.

Ruling

Judge Castel declined to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over the fee dispute. The court denied the requested extension of time because the deadline had expired. It denied the motion to seal as moot because the materials referenced in the motion were already sealed. The court denied all other relief and requested that the Clerk terminate the motions at ECF 122 and ECF 124. The opinion did not decide whether Macalou’s fee-related complaints were legally valid.