Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

749 F.2d 494

Docket No. 84-2003.

Lawrence v. Westerhaus

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 30, 1984. Decided Nov. 30, 1984.

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“(1) the degree of culpability or bad faith of the opposing party; (2) the ability of the opposing party to pay attorney fees; (3) whether an award of attorney fees against the opposing party might have a future deterrent effect under similar circumstances; (4) whether the parties requesting attorney fees sought to benefit all participants and beneficiaries of a plan or to resolve a significant legal question regarding ERISA itself; and (5) the relative merits of the parties’ positions.”

quoted by 26 later decisions, including Brown v. Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Christianson v. Poly-America, Inc. Medical Benefit Plan

“[A] court may properly deny a claim for attorneys' fees solely on the ground that the plaintiff obtained no relief under the statute.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 14 Employee Benefits Cas. 2769, 17 Ucc rep.serv.2d 583 Gary L. Cattin and Thomas F. Omans (90-1016), Plaintiffs-Appellants/cross-Appellees v. General Motors Corporation (90-1051) Electronic Data Systems Corporation (90-1052), Defendants-Appellees/cross-Appellants, Jackson v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)

Relies on Iron Workers Local # 272 v. Bowen · Fase v. Seafarers Welfare & Pension Plan

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1984-11-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 118 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably 40 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1597, 41 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,451 Irving P. Gray v. New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, Irving P. Gray v. New England Telephone and Telegraph Company (1986), Lutheran Medical Center of Omaha Nebraska v. Contractors Laborers Teamsters and Engineers Health and Welfare Plan (1994)

65 federal appellate · 17 district · 1 state decisions

49019841990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Raymond Howard, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

Robert W. Stewart, St. Louis, Mo., for appellees.

Before HEANEY, BRIGHT, and ROSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

Joan Lawrence brought an action for declaratory judgment against the Board of Administrators of the Lincoln St. Louis Pension Plan For Certain Hourly Employees contending that the administrators had wrongfully denied her request for disability benefits under the Plan. In a bench trial, the district court declined to award benefits, but remanded the case to the fiduciary to consider additional evidence. Lawrence thereafter moved for an award of attorneys' fees under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(g) (1982) which authorizes a court, in its discretion, to award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to either party in ERISA actions. The district court denied the motion and Lawrence appeals. We remand.

¶2

The decision whether to award attorneys' fees under ERISA is discretionary, not mandatory. See Fase v. Seafarers Welfare and Pension Plan, 589 F.2d 112, 116 (2d Cir.1978). In exercising that discretion, a court should consider the following factors:(1) the degree of the opposing parties' culpability or bad faith; (2) the ability of the opposing parties to satisfy an award of attorneys' fees; (3) whether an award of attorneys' fees against the opposing parties could deter other persons acting under similar circumstances; (4) whether the parties requesting attorneys' fees sought to benefit all participants and beneficiaries of an ERISA plan or to resolve a significant legal qeustion [sic] regarding ERISA itself; and (5) the relative merits of the parties' positions.

¶3

Iron Workers Local No. 272 v. Bowen, 624 F.2d 1255, 1266 (5th Cir.1980). In addition, a court may properly deny a claim for attorneys' fees solely on the ground that the plaintiff obtained no relief under the statute. See Fase, 589 F.2d at 116.

¶4

In this case we believe that the denial of attorneys' fees may have been premature because the plaintiff may still succeed on the merits of her action, either in the administrative proceedings or otherwise. Accordingly, while agreeing that the district court properly denied the request for fees at this time, we direct that the district court modify its order to permit plaintiff to reapply for fees should she ultimately succeed in her claim for disability benefits.

¶5

Affirmed, modified, and remanded.

/749/f2d/494 · .json · Public domain