Scott Teutscher v. Riverside Sheriffs Assn

Good Law
659 F. App'x 930
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 26, 201613-56411, 13-56659California954 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Intervenor-Appellant William N. Wood-son, III, appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for leave to intervene to seek a fee award directly from Defendant, Riverside Sheriffs’ Association (“RSA”). We address the district court’s judgment in favor of Plaintiff Scott Teutscher against RSA in a concurrently filed opinion. We now affirm the district court’s denial of Woodson’s motion.

Woodson represented Teutscher in an employment dispute with RSA from 2005 until February 2013, when Woodson filed an ex parte application to withdraw as counsel of record. The district court granted Woodson’s motion over objections by RSA and Teutscher, and Teutscher obtained new counsel who successfully represented him through trial on his wrongful and retaliatory discharge claims under state law and his retaliatory discharge claim under section 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1140 . After Teutscher declined to seek attorney’s fees and costs for Woodson’s work on the case under section 502(g)(1) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (g)(1), Woodson, sought to intervene in order to seek fees from RSA on his own behalf. Because we agree…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.