United States Ninth Circuit
Simonia v. Glendale Nissan/Infiniti Disability Plan, 09-56025
In plaintiff's appeal from the district court's denial of his motion for attorney's fees under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the order is affirmed where: 1) district courts must consider the Hummell factors after they have determined that a litigant has achieved "some degree of success on the merits,"; but 2) even assuming plaintiff achieved some degree of success on the merits, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court's conclusion that fees are nonetheless inappropriate after applying the Hummell factors.
Appellate Information
- Decided 06/24/2010
- Published 06/24/2010
Judges
- Before DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN and RICHARD C. TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and JOAN HUMPHREY LEFKOW, District Judge.
Court
- United States Ninth Circuit
Counsel
- For Appellant:
- Charles Fleishman, Esq., and Paul Fleishman, Esq., The Fleishman Law Firm, Northridge, CA, for plaintiff-appellant Aleck Simonia.
- For Appellees:
- Daniel W. Maguire, Esq., Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Los Angeles, CA, for defendants-appellees Glendale Nissan/Infiniti Disability Plan and the Hartford Insurance Company.