David Day v. At&t Disability Income Plan

MEMORANDUM

David Day appeals the district court’s orders granting in part and denying in part his motions for attorneys’ fees in his action filed against the AT & T Disability Income Plan (“the Plan”) under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Because the par- . ties are familiar with the factual and legal history of the case, we need not recount it here.

“We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to award or deny attorney’s fees in an ERISA action, as well as a district court’s determination of the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees.” Van Gerwen v. Guarantee Mut. Life Co., 214 F.3d 1041 , 1045 (9th Cir.2000) (citations omitted). We also review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to grant or deny prejudgment interest. Simeonoff v. Hiner, 249 F.3d 883, 894 (9th Cir.2001). “ ‘This court reviews de novo any elements of legal analysis and statutory interpretation involved in an attorney fees decision.’ ” Trs. of Const Indus. & Laborers Health & Welfare Trust v. Redland Ins. Co., 460 F.3d 1253, 1256 (9th Cir.2006) (citations…