McFarlane v. First UNUM Life Insurance Company

Background

Cherylle McFarlane brought this action against First UNUM Life Insurance Company concerning the termination of her disability benefits. On December 18, 2018, First UNUM notified the Court that it had effectively settled with McFarlane, and the Court adjourned the scheduled trial. McFarlane then moved for attorney’s fees.

On September 5, 2019, the Court granted that fee motion in part and awarded McFarlane $327,600 in attorney’s fees, $2,340 in paralegal fees, $4,481.47 in costs, and $7,120.58 in prejudgment interest. The Court determined that $600 was a reasonable hourly rate for McFarlane’s attorney, Jeffrey Delott.

Motion for Reconsideration

McFarlane asked the Court to reconsider the portion of the prior order setting Delott’s hourly rate at $600. She argued that the Court had overlooked controlling law and material facts relevant to the appropriate rate for an attorney handling a disability-benefit appeal under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). She asked the Court to use a $700 hourly rate instead.

A motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary request generally limited to an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. It is not a vehicle for repeating arguments or relitigating an issue already decided.

Court’s Analysis

The Court rejected McFarlane’s argument that it had overlooked the relevant authorities and facts. It had expressly considered Blum v. Stenson and had considered the rate approved in another case for attorneys with 20 to 25 years of experience, the passage of time, and Delott’s 35 years of litigation experience.

The Court explained that years of practice are only one of the factors used to determine a reasonable hourly rate. It had also considered rates awarded in comparable ERISA cases, Delott’s prior $450 rate in the district, and other relevant factors. The Court again concluded that $600 was reasonable because courts in the district often awarded rates around $600 or less in ERISA cases to attorneys with comparable experience.

The Court also rejected McFarlane’s argument concerning another ERISA case, explaining that the case was one example of similar cases considered in setting the rate. Attempts to distinguish cases relied on in the original ruling, or to argue that those cases were wrongly decided or too old, were not proper grounds for reconsideration.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams denied McFarlane’s motion for reconsideration. The Court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion pending at Docket 160. The opinion did not change the previously awarded $600 hourly rate or the $327,600 attorney’s-fee award.