Shaikh v. Aetna Life Insurance Company

Background

This opinion addresses Shaikh’s motion for attorneys’ fees and prejudgment interest in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) action seeking disability benefits. On March 24, 2020, the court had granted Shaikh’s motion for judgment and denied Aetna’s cross-motion for judgment. Shaikh then sought $163,990 in attorneys’ fees and $2,579.79 in prejudgment interest.

Aetna acknowledged that Shaikh was entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and challenged the amount. Shaikh sought compensation for 232.2 hours worked by attorneys Cassie Springer Ayeni, Rachel Coen, and Jeena Jiampetti, and by paralegal Dominika Wilson.

Attorneys’ Fees

The court used the lodestar method, which multiplies the reasonable hours spent on the case by reasonable hourly rates. It excluded or reduced time that was not reasonably expended.

The court rejected Aetna’s request to exclude all time spent on Shaikh’s unsuccessful motion to compel discovery. The court found that the discovery request was factually and legally related to the case because it concerned the neutrality and credibility of a physician whose opinion Aetna relied on when terminating Shaikh’s disability benefits. The court nevertheless reduced some of the hours spent preparing the motion and reply because portions of the work were excessive.

The court also reduced time for clerical tasks, including filing, service, and document organization, and reduced certain time spent preparing the fee motion and supporting declarations. After these reductions, the court found that 206.2 hours were reasonably expended: 149.6 hours for Springer Ayeni, 47.4 hours for Coen, and 9.2 hours for Jiampetti. The court awarded no hours for Wilson’s work.

The court approved hourly rates of $725 for Springer Ayeni’s work before August 31, 2019, $750 for her work after that date, $500 for Coen, and $450 for Jiampetti. These calculations produced a lodestar of $138,087.50. Because Shaikh sought benefits under both the “Own Occupation” and “Any Occupation” provisions but prevailed only under the former, the court applied a 10 percent reduction. It awarded $124,278.75 in attorneys’ fees.

Prejudgment Interest

Shaikh requested $2,579.79 in prejudgment interest, calculated at 10 percent on $25,797.93 in disability benefits. He argued that the period during which he went without income justified the higher rate. Aetna argued that Shaikh had provided no evidence supporting that assertion.

The court awarded prejudgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, the federal statute governing post-judgment interest rates. The court concluded that Shaikh had not provided substantial evidence showing that the circumstances of his case required a different rate. The opinion does not state the resulting dollar amount of interest under § 1961.

Disposition

The court stated that Shaikh’s motion for attorneys’ fees and prejudgment interest was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It granted the attorneys’ fees request and awarded $124,278.75. It also granted the prejudgment-interest request, awarding interest in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1961 rather than the 10 percent rate requested.