George Cann v. Carpenters' Pension Trust Fund for Northern California

Good Law
93 Daily Journal DAR 3784·989 F.2d 313·1993 WL 82972·16 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1873·1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 5880
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 25, 199391-15628California2,610 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kleinfeld, J.

George Cann appeals the district court’s decision that he is entitled to only $19,847.00 of the $51,600.24 in attorneys’ fees that he requested under ERISA’s attorneys’ fees provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (g)(1). The issues are whether the statute allows for attorneys’ fees for the administrative phase of the claims process, and whether it allows for enhancement for contingency. We hold that it allows for neither, and affirm.

I. Facts.

Cann had disputes regarding his pension eligibility with the southern, and then the northern, carpenters’ union pension trusts. He prevailed against the Southern California trust in 1987. Cann v. Carpenters’ Pension Trust for Southern California, 662 F.Supp. 501 (C.D.Cal.1987). His attorney in that action was Ronald Dean. That same year, the Northern California trust, appellee here, rejected his claim. He retained Mr. Dean, the attorney who had won his Southern California case for him, to pursue his Northern California case. The fee was contingent on winning — Mr. Dean would receive no fees except what the court might award. On behalf of his client, Mr. Dean made a demand for pension credits and filed an appeal with the Northern California trust…

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.