Price v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company

Background

Robin Price, an employee of Medtronic, Inc., brought this benefits dispute under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). After Price filed the lawsuit, Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company reinstated his long-term disability benefits. The parties told the court that they had resolved all issues except attorney’s fees.

Price requested $68,545 for work performed before his reply brief and another $8,000 for preparing that reply, for a total request of $76,545. The parties did not dispute that Price was entitled to reasonable fees. The dispute concerned the amount.

Reasonableness of the Requested Fees

The court applied the lodestar method, which calculates fees by multiplying reasonable hourly rates by the reasonable number of hours worked. Price initially sought hourly rates of $850 for Glenn Kantor and $700 for Sally Mermelstein, later proposing an $800 rate for Kantor. He supported the rates with attorney declarations, fee awards from other cases, and billing records.

The court concluded that these materials adequately supported the requested rates, hours, and bills, but found that some reductions were appropriate. It excluded the fees requested for the reply brief because the brief repeated points from the initial filing, changed Kantor’s requested hourly rate without explanation, and was not supported by billing records for the additional work. The court also found that Price was already seeking fees for more than ten hours spent on the initial brief.

For the remaining work, the court reduced Kantor’s hourly rate from $850 to $800 and Mermelstein’s rate from $700 to $650. Those adjustments produced a subtotal of $64,160. The court then applied a further 25% reduction because the billing records showed excessive time spent communicating with Price and reviewing emails involving him. The court rejected counsel’s argument that Price’s anxiety justified full compensation for that time, explaining that the relevant question was whether the hours were reasonably spent.

ERISA Fee Factors and Ruling

The court also considered the factors identified in Hummell v. S.E. Rykoff & Co., which the Ninth Circuit has traditionally used to guide discretionary ERISA fee awards. The court found that Reliance Standard showed some culpability and bad faith in terminating Price’s benefits, could pay the fees, and might be deterred from similar conduct by the award. One factor was neutral, and another favored Price because the reinstatement of his benefits indicated that his position had merit.

The court granted Price’s motion for attorney’s fees in part and awarded him $48,120. It declined to award prejudgment interest because Price had not requested it. Judge James Donato signed the order.