Woo v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc

Background

Sarah Woo filed two motions: a motion under Rule 59(e) asking the court to alter or amend the judgment, and a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. The underlying dispute involved Woo’s claimed eligibility to participate in a plan and the relief available under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The opinion states that the court had previously entered a judgment awarding Woo monetary relief after ruling on motions under Rule 52.

Motion to Alter the Judgment

The court denied Woo’s Rule 59(e) motion. Rule 59(e) permits a court to change a judgment based on newly discovered evidence, clear error or manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law. The court found that Woo’s arguments had either already been rejected in the order adopting the defendants’ proposed judgment or could have been raised before judgment was entered.

The court also declined to consider actuarial analysis that Woo could have submitted earlier. On the merits, the court stated that its earlier order had not found that Woo was definitely a participant in the plan or entitled to ongoing, permanent participation. Instead, the earlier order had concluded only that the plan language did not unambiguously foreclose her participation and that a reasonable person could interpret the plan terms as allowing it because of the defendants’ initial eligibility determination.

The court further stated that the defendants corrected their earlier eligibility representation on December 22, 2020. It therefore concluded that Woo was not entitled to equitable-estoppel relief after that point. The court also rejected Woo’s argument that ERISA equitable-estoppel principles prevented a monetary make-whole award. It said the judgment did not impose a surcharge remedy and that there had been no finding of fiduciary breach or unjust enrichment.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

The court granted Woo’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. ERISA gives courts discretion to award reasonable fees and costs. Woo initially requested $261,475 in fees and $467 in costs, later reducing the fee request to $257,965 after removing time from an unrelated matter. She later requested an additional $80,480 for work on the fee and Rule 59(e) motions and $12,370.50 for consulting and actuarial-valuation expenses.

The defendants did not dispute that Woo was entitled to a reasonable fee award or challenge the original $467 cost request. They challenged the requested hourly rates and hours and opposed reimbursement for the consulting and valuation expenses.

Hourly Rates

The court reduced the hourly rate for Woo’s primary counsel, Jay Suen, from the requested $800 to $575. It found that Woo had not shown that $800 was the prevailing market rate for an attorney with Suen’s experience and reputation in ERISA litigation. The court noted that Suen’s practice focused on trusts and estates and taxation and that the record did not show prior ERISA litigation experience. The court also declined to use Suen’s 2026 rate of $620 because the rate he charged when most of the work was performed was more reliable.

The court reduced the requested rates for the other lawyer timekeepers by $100 per hour because the record did not establish sufficient ERISA experience. Katharine Malone’s rate was reduced from $650 to $550, Camille Milder’s from $650 to $550, and Maximilian Engel Ojeda’s from $450 to $350.

Hours and Expenses

The court excluded 5.0 hours spent preparing an amended complaint that was never filed. It also approved a 40 percent reduction for work on the form of the judgment because Woo had limited success in those proceedings: the court awarded her monetary relief but adopted the defendants’ proposed judgment rather than Woo’s proposed judgment.

The court did not reduce fees for block billing because the entries identified reasonable groups of tasks and did not make it impossible to assess the work performed. For work through April 3, 2026, the court awarded $183.275 in fees and $467 in costs, as stated in the opinion.

For work from April 4 through July 6, 2026, the court denied fees for work on Woo’s Rule 59(e) motion because that work was not reasonably spent pursuing the litigation after the motion was denied and because most of its arguments had already been rejected or could have been raised earlier. The court also excluded 2.80 hours for preparing time records and 1.90 hours for creating exhibits because those were clerical tasks rather than compensable professional work.

The court denied reimbursement for the consulting and pension-valuation expenses. It reasoned that the expenses supported the unsuccessful Rule 59(e) motion, involved arguments that could have been raised earlier or had already been rejected, and were not supported by evidence showing that the requested rates were reasonable. For the supplemental work, the court awarded $17,920 in fees and no additional costs.

Disposition

The court denied Woo’s Rule 59(e) motion and granted her motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. The final award was $201,195 in attorneys’ fees and $467 in costs.