Smith v. Cmta-Iam Pension Trust

Smith v. Cmta-Iam Pension Trust

Opinion

 [*588]  FERGUSON, Circuit Judge:

This case is before the court to review the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees under section 502(g)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1). We hold that the district court abused its discretion in denying fees and therefore reverse and remand.

The plaintiff, Don Ray Smith, brought this action against the CMTA-IAM Pension Trust to recover benefits which he claimed had been wrongfully withheld for a period  [*589]  of over 3-1/2 years. Smith represented himself until faced with the trust's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, and for fees. He then hired counsel, but the district [**2]  court dismissed Smith's action with prejudice nevertheless. On appeal this court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Smith v. CMTA-IAM Pension Trust, 654 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1981). Upon remand, the parties settled. Included in the settlement agreement was the following paragraph:

C. The parties hereto will seek to reach an agreement concerning the payment of attorney's fees for Don Ray Smith. In the event of a failure by the parties to reach such an agreement, Don Ray Smith or his attorney may petition the Court for said fees. Failure of the parties to reach an agreement concerning attorney's fees shall not have any effect upon the finality of this settlement agreement.

The parties could not agree on the payment of plaintiff's attorney's fees, and Smith moved for fees before the district court pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1). His motion was denied and he appeals. Smith also seeks fees and costs for this appeal.

] ERISA provides that "the court in its discretion may allow a reasonable attorney's fee and costs of action to either party." § 502(g)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1). A decision denying [**3]  fees will be set aside if the district court (1) abused its discretion, Hummell  v. S.E. Rykoff & Co., 634 F.2d 446, 452 (9th Cir. 1980); (2) failed to state the reasons for its decision, id. at 452-53; or (3) used incorrect legal standards to reach its decision.  Lummi Indian Tribe v. Oltman, 720 F.2d 1124, 1125 (9th Cir. 1983). If the district court fails to state the reasons for its decision a remand for a statement of reasons may be necessary. Hummell, 634 F.2d at 452-53.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.