Van Gerwen v. Guarantee Mutual Life Co.

This case presents the question whether — and if so, how — a district court may permissibly reduce an attorney’s fees award under federal fee-shifting statutes to reflect poor quality of representation.

FACTUAL And PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Maria Van Gerwen sued defendants under ERISA § 502 for improperly denying her past and future benefits under an ERISA long term disability plan. Following discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and the district court granted Van Gerwen’s motion, ruling that Van Gerwen was entitled to benefits under the plan as well as $40,-412 in damages.

Van Gerwen moved for attorney’s fees for 127.25 hours at a rate of $300 an hour — a total of $38,175. 1 The court awarded only $14,212.50 in fees. Relying on defendants’ evidence that the customary hourly rate for an ERISA plaintiffs attorney is “no more than $200 per hour” and Van Gerwen’s evidence that the range of hourly rates for an ERISA plaintiffs attorney is $175-350, the district court concluded $200 was a reasonable hourly rate. The court then awarded fees for only 94.75 hours, because it found that only the administrative record was relevant evidence and that Van…