Attorneys' Fees

Subscribe to Attorneys' Fees via RSS

This week’s notable decision, Simonoff v. Saghafi, et al., No. 19-3001, __F.App’x__, 2019 WL 4691468 (6th Cir. Sept. 26, 2019), is one where your sympathies may align with the end result, but one which seemingly makes a case that it is difficult to get attorneys’ fees if you’re a successful party in an ERISA action.

As the panel noted in its opening line, “[a]ll family disputes are sad.”  The underlying dispute involved a QDRO enforcement action between a husband and his wife’s guardian following 55 years of marriage.  In short, Defendant Dr. Saghafi, alleged that his estranged daughter took advantage of his wife’s (her mother’s) dementia by isolating her from the family and hiring a divorce attorney who convinced the family court to issue two QDROs requiring Dr. Saghafi to sign off on the division of certain retirement funds.  He refused.  So, Plaintiff, the guardian of the wife’s estate, brought suit to enforce the QDROs.  Dr. Saghafi responded by bringing several counterclaims, including a civil RICO claim.  The district court enforced the QDROs and dismissed the counterclaims, not on their merits, but because of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine which prohibits federal appellate review of state judgments.
Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Affirms Denial of Attorneys’ Fees to Successful ERISA Plaintiff in QDRO Dispute

Good morning, ERISA Watchers!  This week’s notable decision is Tran v. Minnesota Life Ins. Co., No. 18-1723, __F.3d__, 2019 WL 1894769 (7th Cir. Apr. 29, 2019). The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling finding that the insured’s death from autoerotic asphyxiation was an accidental death payable under his life insurance policy.  The Seventh Circuit held that a reasonable person would interpret the insured’s death from autoerotic asphyxiation to be death due to an “intentionally self-inflicted injury,” which is excluded from the life insurance policy.

If in addition to being unable to say “autoerotic asphyxiation” five times fast you also don’t know what it refers to, the Seventh Circuit noted its definition as “a sexual practice by which a person purposefully restricts blood flow to the brain to induce a feeling of euphoria. ‘Asphyxiophilia’ as defined in the DSM-5 is a subset of sexual masochism disorder, by which an ‘individual engages in the practice of achieving sexual arousal related to restriction of breathing.’” (citing to the 5th edition of the American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).  
Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Holds that Death by Autoerotic Asphyxiation Is Excluded under AD&D Policy

Hello, ERISA Watchers!  Last week was quite the busy week for ERISA decisions.  By now, you all should have gotten wind of the over 40,000-word findings of fact and conclusions of law issued in Wit v. United Behavioral Health, No. 14-CV-02346-JCS, 2019 WL 1033730 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2019), where Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero essentially found that UBH’s Guidelines for treatment of mental health and substance use disorders are largely inconsistent with generally accepted standards of care.  A “summary” of that decision would take several pages (and my entire precious weekend) so I picked another less-publicized decision to highlight for you today:  International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace And Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), et al., v. TRW Automotive U.S. LLC, No. 18-1160, __F.App’x__, 2019 WL 1040636 (6th Cir. Mar. 5, 2019).

In International Union, TRW Automotive brought a combined appeal challenging an arbitral decision in favor of retired TRW employees and their union and challenging the district court’s denial of TRW’s motion to rule that attorney’s fees could not be awarded against it.  
Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Vacates Arbitrator’s Award of Enhanced Healthcare Coverage to Retirees