Dave Nguyen v. Hartford Life Insurance Co.

MEMORANDUM

This appeal and cross-appeal involve a district court’s award of attorney fees to Nguyen under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). See 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (g)(1).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in setting an hourly rate of $180 for Nguyen’s attorney fees after Nguyen failed to offer any relevant evidence to support the claimed $325 hourly rate. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 , 895 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1541 , 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984) (fee applicant bears the burden of producing satisfactory evidence of the prevailing rates in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation). Evidence submitted by Hartford supports the $180 rate set by the district court.

Nguyen requested fees for 18 hours of time spent replying to Hartford’s brief opposing the motion for attorney fees and attending the hearing on the motion for attorney fees. In a somewhat cryptic manner, the district court indicated that it had considered those 18 hours, and the district court did not err in disallowing fees for those hours.

The district court appropriately awarded Nguyen attorney fees for time spent on…